Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Surplus Stores (Sale)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he has completed his inquiries following his interview with Mr. F. R. Evans, of Leeds, concerning the procedures adopted in his Department in relation to the purchase of Government stows; and whether he will make a statement.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Yes, Sir. Surplus Admiralty stores are almost invariably sold by competitive tender. All tenders received are held unopened until the due date. They are then opened and examined in the presence of senior officers who witness the due recording of the individual tenders. I am satisfied that this long-established procedure eliminates the possibility of any irregularities in the Admiralty.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware—though I must ask him whether he is—that my constituent, who has had great experience in these matters, suggested that there was some commercial leakage in the Admiralty in cases in which he has been concerned, and that there were people, known in different parts of the country, who had "leaked". These names were given to the Minister at the time.
I ask the hon. Gentleman now whether he is satisfied that the allegations, which were made in good faith—I shall not mention any names—were well founded, or whether he has been able to investigate the particular cases referred to?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. The allegations were serious, and I therefore looked

into them most carefully. In the particular instance of the firm whose name was mentioned, I found that, in tendering for machinery, it was unsuccessful with over 80 per cent. of its bids, so the story was not wholly true that it was always successful in its tendering.

H.M.S. "Surprise"

Commander Kerans: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what plans he has for the future of H.M.S. "Surprise"; and how many days per year she spends at sea.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Excluding a normal ten week refit, the dispatch vessel H.M.S. "Surprise" has spent about half her time this year at sea taking part in exercises and visiting foreign ports. She is a valuable and economical unit of the Mediterranean Fleet, and we plan to keep her running for as long as possible.

New Construction

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how he proposes to allocate contracts for new naval construction.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It is no longer policy to allocate orders for new construction to commercial yards. These contracts are won primarily as a result of competitive tendering. As far as the Royal Dockyards are concerned, their main task is the modernisation, repair and maintenance of the Fleet; they are allocated sufficient new construction to provide essential knowledge and experience of shipbuilding techniques.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my hon. Friend realise that mere maintenance and reconstruction work is very dull indeed? We have very good workpeople in Portsmouth who can build ships extremely well and rather more cheaply. Will he reconsider this and let the Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth build new ships?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are providing a trickle of new ships to the Royal Dockyards for the purpose which I stated. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Portsmouth Dockyard looks like being very fully engaged. It has the depot ship "Maidstone" to modernise, the conversion of H.M.S. "Albion" to


a commando carrier, and also the substantial refit, later this year or early next year, of H.M.S. "Hermes." There is thus no lack of work.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that construction of naval ships in Her Majesty's Dockyards is considerably cheaper than calling for tenders; and whether he will allocate all new naval construction to Her Majesty's Dockyards.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It is difficult to compare prices, but on recent evidence, costs of ships built in the Royal Dockyards have been roughly equal to those built by the industry. It is as yet too early to say whether this pattern will be affected by the reintroduction of competitive tendering, but, as I explained in my reply to the last question, price is not the only consideration in allocating a small amount of building to the Royal Dockyards.

Brigadier Clarke: My hon. Friend has been kind in sending work to Portsmouth, but is he aware that the Accountant-General has stated that it is much cheaper to build ships in H.M. Dockyards? In view of the fact that there have been no strikes this century in any of the Royal Dockyards, will my hon. Friend reconsider this and let us build ships in them?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As I have said, I am feeding a trickle to the Royal Dockyards, but I must keep a balance, because many hon. Members represent shipbuilding areas which desperately need work.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when we were in charge of the Admiralty we gave a large amount of contracts to H.M. Dockyards, and also gave them repayment work which was most satisfactory? Will he consider that?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would not like to quote the figures without looking them up, but my impression is that H.M. Dockyards had less new building under the previous Administration than under our Administration. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, when I can answer more fully.

Mr. Mulley: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that public enter-

prise in the dockyards will not be adversely affected, in view of his hint about other shipyards? Will he say that, if the dockyards can do the work more cheaply, they will get it?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: From the evidence it is rather difficult to assess whether it is cheaper or not, but we are directing a trickle towards the Royal Dockyards. About 10 per cent. of our new building goes to them and 90 per cent. to private yards.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the Minister a scintilla of evidence in favour of the extravagant and false premise on which the original Question was based? Does he agree that Britain is rich in shipyards able and willing to do the work cheaply and efficiently? Will he see that such work is fairly distributed among those shipyards, particularly Aberdeen?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that the hon. and learned Member's scintilla has underlined my difficulty.

Recruiting and Re-engagement

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the latest figures for recruiting and re-engagement for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. C. Ian On-Ewing: One thousand three hundred and fifty-nine Royal Navy ratings were recruited in April-June, 1961, as compared with 1,124 for the same period in 1960. The corresponding Royal Marine figures were 233 and 201 respectively. The rate of re-engagement for pension in 1960 was 64 per cent. for Royal Navy ratings and 52 per cent. for Royal Marine other ranks. The information so far available for 1961 does not indicate any significant change in re-engagement.

Mr. Wall: How far does my hon. Friend attribute these satisfactory figures to advertising in the Press? Will he say, in comparison with the equivalent Army figures, whether these figures give a good basis for increasing the Vote A strength of the Royal Marines?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is true that we have increased our Press advertising and the response from advertising coupons has noticeably improved. There were 5,000


in the first six months of last year, and 12,000 have sent them in during the first six months of this year. The second question is rather wider. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War no doubt heard what my hon. Friend said.

Kuwait

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what ships and personnel from his Department are involved in the evacuation of troops from Kuwait.

Mr. C Ian Orr-Ewing: The commander-in-chief has been instructed to announce the movements of ships and troops. He has already stated that No. 45 and No. 42 Commando and H.M.S. "Bulwark" are likely to leave Kuwait shortly. I have nothing to add at present.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that apparently a large sum of money has been spent in Kuwait and that a considerable number of troops are suffering great hardship in Kuwait as a result of the request of the Ruler of Kuwait for security? Could he arrange for the evacuation of the Ruler of Kuwait and protect him here by Scotland Yard?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure that the hon. Member realises that the Government's first consideration was to honour our recent and solemn undertaking to the Sheik of Kuwait. I am surprised that he wants to relate this honour to £s. d.

Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what has been the incidence of heat exhaustion among Royal Marine Commandos in Kuwait.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made a statement on the situation in Kuwait on 11th July, in which he said that the number of cases of heat exhaustion were well under 1 per cent. of the total force. This general average applied equally to men of the Royal Marine Commandos despite the fact that in the early stages of the campaign, these men had to work in forward areas throughout the heat of the day in very trying conditions.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Will the Minister therefore agree that the Royal Marines do not fall out and collapse

due to any extremes of weather, when on active service or for that matter on the parade ground, and that they very much resent any suggestion of this sort? In that connection, will he take this opportunity to deny the ridiculous reports which appeared in the Daily Mirror on 6th July that a Royal Marine Commando was withdrawn from Kuwait because one-third of the men were suffering from heat exhaustion?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am delighted to deny the accuracy of that report. The total number of cases needing hospital treatment among the Commandos has been about fifteen. On average it has been about one a day. They have not only undertaken the operation with tremendous efficiency but have stood up to the conditions remarkably well.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has my hon. Friend received any requests from Parliamentary delegations who want to visit the men on the spot?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Not to date.

Security (Departmental Committees)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the two Departmental committees to investigate security arrangements, which were set up before the Romer Committee was appointed, have now reported; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As my noble Friend the First Lord stated in another place on 5th July, he set up an internal Committee to review the organisation for security within the Admiralty. As a result of a report from this Committee he has decided to set up a new Security Department. Some further work remains to be done on details but the Committee's work should be completed before long.
On the same occasion, my noble Friend stated that he had also ordered an examination of the working of the security system both at headquarters and elsewhere. This examination has much ground to cover and will necessarily take longer.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister explain how it is that reports of the activities of these Committees, which are supposed to be confidential, have already been


leaked to the Press before any statement of their work has been made to the House? Does it not appear that something is wrong with the security of the security in the Admiralty? In those circumstances, will he expedite the appointment of a competent and responsible person to do away with all these Committees and to establish some real security in his Department?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend has shown clearly how seriously we take the mistakes which have occurred in the past. There is no question of leakage; we have announced in another place what action we are taking on the main recommendations of this Committee.

Russian Naval Manoeuvres

Mr. D. Foot: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what information he received from the Russian authorities regarding the Russian naval manoeuvres in northern waters and the English Channel.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: None, Sir.

Mr. Foot: Arising out of that reply, does not the Minister agree that the appearance of Russian warships in the English Channel, as reported in the Press a few days ago, must be a matter of concern to the people of this country? Will he give the House any information derived from any source as to the number and types of craft involved?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot give details of the numbers and types involved in the exercises in general. One cruiser and one destroyer went up the English Channel. This is the right of sailing on the high seas. I do not think that I can interfere with that.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Does not the Prime Minister accept that, while agreeing with the point behind the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), it would be better not to say too much about this, as any inquiries or observations which we might have made about the Russians are better kept to ourselves?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

N.A.A.F.I. Stores, Germany

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Navy, Army and Air Force

Institutes' stores in Germany are selling large quantities of German-made goods; and whether, with a view to saving foreign currency, he will instruct them to sell British goods instead.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, like any other trading organisation, must pay regard to what the customer wants. It is its policy to sell British goods as far as possible, but the 10 per cent. of its sales in Germany which is represented by German goods consists of goods for which there is a strong demand amongst our forces, and which in any case they would be free to buy in the local shops.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is every appearance of N.A.A.F.I. stores being much fuller of German goods than 10 per cent.? There is obviously some loss of foreign currency through this means. We need not be shy about clamping down in this way, because the Americans have had to prevent their own Service men from buying British cars and other British goods in order to save American currency. If we wish to save British currency, is not this the way to do it?

Mr. Profumo: I understand what my hon. Friend has in mind, but it would cost less in foreign currency for N.A.A.F.I. to buy these things wholesale than for the individual to buy them retail.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not very desirable that the N.A.A.F.I. should sell local goods to avoid the criticism which has been expressed in some cases about N.A.A.F.I. competing with local shops?

Mr. Profumo: The policy of N.A.A.F.I. is not to encourage the sale of German goods but to provide what the troops want at a cheaper price.

Vacated Army Camps

Mr. Slater: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Army camps in the United Kingdom have been vacated in the last two years; where such camps were situated; and what transference has taken place to other Government Departments of houses and buildings.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): One hundred and seventy-one situated throughout the United Kingdom. Fifteen have been transferred in whole or in part to other Government Departments.

Mr. Slater: Is not the Minister aware that everything should be done to speed up the transference of the houses and buildings attached to these sites? In view of the existence of the vacated army camp in my constituency, may I ask whether the transference of the houses and buildings has been completed and how much it cost?

Mr. Ramsden: The transference of sixteen married quarters to the Ministry of Health has been completed. The remainder of the disposal process is going ahead but it is not yet complete. I will keep the hon. Member in touch with the progress.

Bandsman Leverton

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will release Bandsman Leverton from the remainder of his Army service so that he may take up in September the place which he has obtained at King Alfred's Teacher Training College, Winchester.

Mr. Ramsden: Yes, Sir. I am considering whether I can remit any part of the purchase price which he will have to pay. I will let the hon. Gentleman know about this as soon as I can.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a desperate shortage of teachers, and that it would not be reasonable to keep this man for a few more months in the Army, and, as a result, cause him to enter the teaching profession a year later, if indeed he entered it at all?

Mr. Ramsden: Yes, Sir. I think that, as the hon. Gentleman recognised in a letter which he wrote to me recently, the point now is what he can reasonably be expected to pay for his discharge, and this is under examination by the Command at the present time.

Kuwait

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he sought the advice of his consultant in tropical medi

cine, Professor A. W. Woodruff, or his consultant in physiology and nutrition, Dr. D. P. Cuthbertson, when preparing his plans for sending troops into Kuwait at the hottest time of the year.

Mr. Ramsden: The problems associated with tropical medicine, physiology and nutrition affecting our troops in Kuwait are understood, and it was not necessary to seek special advice on this occasion.

Mr. Wigg: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that the Government maintain a panel of most distinguished advisers, and, when confronted with a special problem, do not consult these advisers? Would he not accept the view that in these days it is a disgrace that any single British Service man should suffer from heat hyperexia in the light of modern knowledge?

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter several times recently. I should like to make it quite clear that my right hon. Friend not only values the services of these distinguished gentlemen, but that they are frequently used. As regards Kuwait and whether the troops are eating and drinking the right things to keep them fit, I am satisfied from what I saw that they are. Now that they are settled down to the drill and routine appropriate to the hot weather, everything is satisfactory.

Mr. Kershaw: May I ask my hon. Friend not to take too seriously the strictures of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who has so long enjoyed the reputation of the Cassandra of the British Forces that he is absolutely furious that in Kuwait everything has gone all right?

Mr. Wigg: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think that Kuwait has gone all right? I think that the Government have used their public relations services to prevent the public from knowing the truth.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for War which units have now been withdrawn from Kuwait; and whether it is proposed to withdraw further units.

Mr. Profumo: Two companies of the Coldstream Guards and a small number of supporting troops have already been


withdrawn from Kuwait. The question of further withdrawals is still under consideration.

Mr. Mayhew: Do these withdrawals mean that an attack is not expected? Will the Minister bear in mind that we have reports of accommodation difficulties in Kuwait and continuing reports of a severe shortage of troops in other parts of the world? Is he not aware that he will be strongly criticised if he keeps troops hanging about in Kuwait for a moment longer than is necessary?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept all that, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman means. I shall be strongly criticised, I think, whatever we do, but I prefer to be criticised for doing our duty, and I think it is our duty to keep our troops there so long as the Ruler of Kuwait feels that they are necessary, and, in particular, so long as the commander-in-chief on the spot feels that there is uncertainty about the future. So soon as we are satisfied, we will certainly withdraw more troops, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I hope it will not be long before we withdraw further troops. May I take the opportunity of refuting what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said? I believe that this is not a public relations exercise, but that it has been highly successful and very creditable to the Army.

Mr. Wigg: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied, is he aware that the troops went in without anti-aircraft cover, with ineffective anti-tank weapons, with no ground strike force, short of long-range fighters and without any effective long-distance freighters? If that satisfies him, well, God help us if he had been disappointed.

Mr. Profumo: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that this does not bear any relation to the original Question.

Vickers Vigilant Anti-Tank Weapon

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to place orders for the Vickers Vigilant.

Mr. Profumo: I am considering the question of a production order for this

or some other light anti-tank guided weapon.

Mr. Mayhew: While, obviously, it is not possible to judge this particular weapon without special knowledge, is it not clear that the Army is very short of weapons of this type, and that our forces in Kuwait would have been stronger for anti-tank weapons of this type? Can the Minister say when it first became available, and when he intends to take a decision?

Mr. Profumo: We need this, because we want a light anti-tank weapon, but we already have anti-tank weapons, and the troops which went into Kuwait were armed with anti-tank weapons. This is something which we feel would be useful, partially for air transportability. We have started trials, and some of the trials have been finished, but we have to assess this weapon against other light anti-tank weapons, and l cannot give any undertaking when we will be able to make a decision. It will be a matter of weeks before we can do so, and it would not have been any good if we had selected this weapon before Kuwait, because there is no "head" for it yet.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister give us any indication of what the Vickers Vigilant costs, and why he should be pressed to go in for more of these weapons when we are told that we are facing a financial crisis?

Mr. Profumo: So far, the Vickers Vigilant has cost us nothing, because it was a private venture by this company. If we buy them, it will depend on how many of them we buy, and we have not yet been able to settle any price. Our responsibility is to try to see that the Army is armed with the weapons which it requires for modern warfare, and there is a requirement for a light, wire-guided, anti-tank weapon of that type. When the time comes, perhaps I can tell the House more about the cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Burtonwood Air Base

Mr. Lee: asked the Secretary of State for Air for what purposes the Royal Air Force propose to use the former United States air base at Burtonwood, Lancashire.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): As a reserve airfield.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for three or four years I have been trying to impress upon the Government that this great base, the biggest freighter base in Europe, has been deteriorating rapidly, while the Government have been procrastinating, and that I have been fobbed off with a story that the runway is unusable because of mining subsidence? Would he confirm that this runway is in good condition to help in transporting freight for industry, as soon as the Royal Air Force have gone out?

Mr. Amery: We think that the runway will give us good service for some years yet, but this will to a large extent depend upon the progress of the subsidence which is affecting the main runway. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have no objection in principle to civil use, subject to the R.A.F. having priority, provided that the cost of civil operations does not fall on Air Votes.

Mr. Lee: Will the Minister say that the fact that the R.A.F. is now using it will not preclude industry in the North-West from utilising the runway at Burton-wood, if it can be used with advantage for industrial freight?

Mr. Amery: As the hon. Gentleman knows, subject to the R.A.F. having priority, and provided that the cost of civil operation does not fall on Air Votes, yes.

Married Quarters, Iburg

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the fact that the shortage of married quarters at Iburg means that non-commissioned officers and airmen have to wait over a year before being joined by their families, what steps he intends to take to rectify this matter.

Mr. Amery: The non-commissioned officers and airmen now in official married accommodation at Iburg had to wait, on an average, about eight months for it.
Some men, however, who have gone there within the last ten weeks have already been joined by their families in

private accommodation which they found themselves.
Every effort is being made to find suitable houses or flats—flats to rent that is—to augment the existing official accommodation.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Without asking my right hon. Friend to comment on individual cases, may I ask if he is aware of the case which I brought to his notice recently in which an N.C.O., who has already been separated from his family for eleven months, will not be joined by his family for eighteen months? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is one of the greatest bars to satisfactory recruiting, because the women just will not have it?

Mr. Amery: I am indeed aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. We are hoping that a solution will be found for this one, but the figures which I have given to my hon. Friend show that this is certainly exceptional.

Kuwait

Mr. Mulley: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the resources of Transport Command have been utilised on the airlift to Kuwait; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many aircraft of the Royal Air Force Transport Command, transports of the Royal Rhodesian Air Force and civilian charter aircraft, respectively, were used in the first six days of the Kuwait operation; and what was the total number of men and tonnage of stores moved.

Mr. Amery: Some seventy Royal Air Force Transport aircraft were used, most of them within the first forty-eight hours.
In addition three Royal Rhodesian Air Force transport aircraft and seventeen chartered civil aircraft were used in the first six days of the Kuwait operation.
About 7,000 men and about 700 tons of stores were moved to airfields in the Persian Gulf and Aden.
The speed and efficiency with which this operation was carried out are in great measure the result of intensive


and combined training of the Army and the Royal Air Force in the movement of troops and equipment by air.

Mr. Mulley: Will the Minister be good enough to convey our congratulations to the men and officers concerned? Nevertheless, is he satisfied, as a result of the Kuwait operation, that a most serious shortage of transport aircraft has not been disclosed, and that if the Kuwait incident had occurred at a spot less well placed to one of our bases we would not have been in great difficulties? Is he doing something more to obtain additional transport aircraft—especially a long-range strategic freighter?

Mr. Amery: I thank the hon. Member for his congratulations, and I will see that what has been said in the House is passed on to the forces concerned. As the House knows, in the Estimates debate we explained our plans for the strengthening of Transport Command. We are certainly not satisfied with the strength that we have today, and we mean to see that it is built up. At the same time, the operation showed that we were able, within our resources and without cutting down other essential tasks. to do the job in hand.

Mr. John Hall: I join with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) in congratulating those responsible for the organisation of this air lift. Nevertheless, is it not apparent from this operation that Transport Command is stretched to the utmost, and that if another operation had been necessary at about the same time we should have found it very difficult to meet the commitment? In that case, would it not be advisable to hasten the development of further types of transport aircraft, especially a strategic, long-distance aircraft, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park said?

Mr. Amery: I am all for hastening the development of these aircraft as soon as possible, but I do not think that it is proper to say that we were stretched to the limit. Throughout the operation we continued to run the routine airlift that had been going on of Ghana and Nigerian forces into the Congo. A number of aircraft were carrying out routine transport tasks elsewhere in the world, and within six days of the beginning of the operation we were carrying out what was, in

effect, a distinct operation, namely, the reinforcement of Kenya with elements of the 19th Brigade.

Mr. Wigg: Would it not help the House to understand and get this problem into perspective if the Minister told the House the time and hour at which this operation began?

Mr. Amery: That is a separate question. If the hon. Member wants an answer, perhaps he will put it down.

Mr. McMaster: In view of the need shown by the operation in Kuwait for a long-range freighter, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the order for the Belfast long-range freighter?

Mr. Amery: I pay tribute to the strong local feeling that animates my hon. Friend. We are looking forward to having the Belfast as soon as possible.

Middleton St. George Airfield

Mr. Slater: asked the Secretary of State for Air how long he expects that Middleton St. George Airport will be required for Royal Air Force purposes.

Mr. Amery: This airfield will be needed for operational flying for as long as we can foresee.

Mr. Slater: Since the Minister is not in a position to give an estimate of how long this airport will be required for Air Force facilities, is he aware that in all probability application will be made for civil flying for the North-East? Will he do whatever he can to assist, if he should be called in for consultations on this matter?

Mr. Amery: I recognise the limitations of Ministerial foresight. I was on Tees-side the other day, and I know the strength of feeling that exists up there, but it is my first duty to see that the operational aircraft of the Royal Air Force have the necessary facilities, and for the time being I cannot foresee the time when we shall not need this airfield for operational purposes.

Aircraft (Air Defence and Ground Attack Rôles)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Air what aircraft are available for air defence and ground attack


rôles in operations similar to the Kuwait operation but where long metalled runways are not available in the area.

Mr. Amery: The Hunter 9 can operate from suitable natural surfaces after some preparation provided sufficient length is available. But we have at present no aircraft of this type which is wholly independent of long runways or prepared, or semi-prepared, surfaces.

Mr. Hall: As the Hunter aircraft is now obsolete or obsolescent, is it not time that we developed an aircraft which could operate under these conditions?

Mr. Amery: We are giving active thought and study to this problem. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but there are a number of candidates for the particular type of aircraft which my hon. Friend has in mind in his Question, and we have not yet come to a final decision on which is the most suitable for all our purposes.

Mr. Mulley: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that there is an awfully long gap between the end of his consideration and the time when the aircraft become available in service? Does he realise that it is a serious matter, and that we should get something done about short take-off and landing aircraft? Can he say anything about the offer that I understand has been made by the Lockheed Company, to the effect that it would allow its Hercules strategic freighter to be developed for this purpose in this country?

Mr. Amery: I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not talk about freighters, because the Question related to air defence and ground attack aircraft. At present there are no air defence or ground attack aircraft with short or vertical take-off capabilities. This is what we hope to see developing in the next few years, and what we are engaged in studying at die moment is the choice of suitable types.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Youth Training

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the termination of National Service, what contribution is now being made by the Ser-

vices towards the training given to the youth of this country.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The cadet forces are at present the main instrument through which the contribution of the Services to youth work is made. We are considering the extent to which we can provide better facilities and new equipment.
The Services also take part or assist each year in many activities in conjunction with youth clubs and similar bodies; the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, Outward Bound Trust Courses, and the Ten Tors Expedition are examples. This year, as an experiment, facilities are being afforded by the Royal Navy to the National Association of Boys' Clubs for a camp to be held at Portland, and some thirty volunteer members of the three Services are going as group leaders at other camps and courses run by the National Association of Boys' Clubs and the National Association of Mixed Clubs. If these ventures are successful, I hope that it may be possible to expand them in succeeding years.

Mr. Digby: Can my right hon. Friend say in what kind of way he may be able to expand these voluntary activities?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes. I hope that hon. Members will take an interest in this matter in their own constituencies. The Services have a great part to play in the Youth Service, in offering leaders and instructors and men who are willing to help to teach the youth of the country new and exciting things to do. I hope that we can greatly develop this over the next few years.

British Army of the Rhine

Commander Courtney: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the need for greater military flexibility arising from balance of payments difficulties and other considerations, he will redesignate the British Army of the Rhine as part of the United Kingdom Strategic Reserve.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. Our W.E.U. and N.A.T.O. obligations specifically allow us to withdraw our assigned forces on the Continent of Europe in the event of an acute overseas emergency. Moreover, if our Brussels Treaty commitments throw too great a strain on our external


finances, there is provision in both W.E.U. and N.A.T.O. for reviewing the financial conditions on which our forces are maintained on the mainland of Europe.
Re-designation would, therefore, serve no practical purpose.

Commander Courtney: Will my right hon. Friend confirm one conclusion to which I have come after some research into the matter, namely, that even at times of this country's greatest strength, economically and otherwise, it has not previously been considered wise policy to maintain a standing Army in peace time on the Continent of Europe?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a rather different matter. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend knows that we maintain these forces in N.A.T.O. in furtherance of our clear Treaty obligations.

South Africa (Defence Talks)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his official discussions with the Minister of Defence of the Union of South Africa, the South African Secretary for Defence, and the Commandant of the South African armed forces, on the subject of the defence relations between the Union and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Watkinson: My talks with the South African Minister of Defence were, of course, confidential. They were concerned with how best to meet our defence requirements in the changed relationship between our countries. They thus formed part of the examination of our future relationships with South Africa over the whole field which is still continuing.

Mr. Brockway: The conversations may have been confidential, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that very big issues are involved? Is he aware of our concern about the statement of the Minister of Defence for South Africa that the main purpose of the reorganisation of his Army is to repress any internal disturbances and any incursion of Africans from other territories? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that we should take no part in such activities? Secondly, is it true that there was a contribution of arms to the Government of South Africa?

In view of the use of our Saracens at Sharpeville and Pondoland, is it not time that we stopped sending arms to the Government of the Union of South Africa?

Mr. Watkinson: All these are rather different questions, and if the hon. Member will put them down I will seek to answer them. The main point is that South Africa is now an independent country. On the other hand, we have long-standing arrangements with her. For example, there is the Simonstown naval base, which is of great interest to our strategic dispositions. These are the matters that I discussed with the South African Defence Minister, and there is still more work to do before a settlement can be reached.

Mr. Awbery: Can the Minister say to what extent we are responsible for the defence of South Africa, which is now an independent country, and how much of this cost will fall upon our taxpayers?

Mr. Watkinson: As I understand it, since South Africa is an independent country we are not responsible.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that the strategic objective of the Powers who are at least partly responsible for the trouble in Angola is the Atlantic coast of Africa, which is vital to the defence of the West?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that I had better stick to the subject of the Question. There is a very difficult tidying-up operation to be done between us and South Africa. It is in our mutual interest that we should do it.

Mr. Marquand: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no agreement was made in these talks for the further supply of arms to the Union of South Africa?

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I would not be prepared to agree or disagree with that.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Defence what restrictions have been placed on defence arrangements with the Union of South Africa to exclude United Kingdom commitments in relation to military assistance by the Union Government to the Government of Portugal in the territories of Mozambique and Angola.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on 6th July.

Mr. Brockway: I have read that reply, but it gives very little information. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of our arrangements with the Union of South Africa, we should be very careful indeed that our defence arrangements do not involve us in any action by the Union Government in collaboration with the Portuguese or other Governments in Angola and Mozambique?

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend's Answer was perfectly plain. He said that no such Anglo-South African defence commitment existed.

Overseas Military Expenditure

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence what measures are in contemplation for a reduction in our overseas military expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: I am always seeking to economise expenditure, particularly overseas; but I have no special statement to make at present

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that, because of the burdens facing this country, it would be necessary to reduce our overseas military expenditure? Have the Government no plans? Was that merely a nebulous statement meaning nothing?

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement was perfectly clear. I have nothing to add to it at the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: What was clear about it?

Mr. Watkinson: Obviously in any examination of Government expenditure, overseas expenditure of all kinds must be included.

Mr. Kershaw: If my right hon. Friend has to consider any reduction, will he

bear in mind that there are many of us who think that we should sooner exercise our rights under the N.A.T.O. Treaty, for a reduction of forces, than reduce our commitments in further places in the world?

Mr. Watkinson: That is quite a different question.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in this context he used the words, in response to an earlier Question, "clear Treaty obligations" in reference to the British Army of the Rhine? Are those Treaty obligations incapable of re-negotiation having regard to our current financial circumstances?

Mr. Watkinson: I made it perfectly clear in that Answer, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to have a look at it, that there are certain outlets from the Treaty both on the ground of finance and on the ground of some emergency overseas requirement for British Forces, and those are part of the Treaty.

Military Exercise, Portugal

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister of Defence on what date it is now intended that the postponed military exercises in Portugal will take place.

Mr. Watkinson: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 6th July.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister of Defence why it has been necessary to postpone the military exercises due to take place in Portugal.

Mr. Watkinson: Part of the Brigade which it had been intended to exercise in Portugal has been deployed overseas as a result of the Kuwait operation.

Mr. Dugdale: As the right hon. Gentleman has had a full opportunity of deploying troops in a genuine military exercise in Kuwait, will he finally once and for all cancel this very ill-starred Portuguese manœuvre?

Mr. Watkinson: The position is quite plain and it has been debated in this House a number of times. The Portuguese kindly offered us these facilities, which we accepted. We were then not


able to use them. I have no intention at the moment of doing other than leaving matters as they stand.

Kuwait

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a further statement on Kuwait.

Mr. Watkinson: I have nothing to add at this stage to the reply I gave on 17th July to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister intend introducing a Supplementary Estimate of what we have spent in the desert of Kuwait on the same day as the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his appeal to reduce defence expenditure? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we have the men, the money, or the resources to be involved in Kuwait and Berlin at the same time?

Mr. Watkinson: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, he may well be considerably over-estimating the cost of this exercise, because I am glad to say that it has led to the deployment of troops, which we are always having to do round the world, with no fighting. As to our responsibility in Berlin, I consider that we can fulfil this and our responsibility in Kuwait.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the withdrawal of certain troops recently, can the Minister now say how many are left in Kuwait?

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I do not think that it would be in the national interest to do so, but, as I have told the House, I hope that there will be a progressive withdrawal.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will give particulars of the announcement by General Kassem, on 28th June, 1961, of his intention to annex Kuwait.

Mr. Watkinson: As is generally known, the first statement by General Kassem of an intention to annex Kuwait was made on June 25th. Since then, his campaign has continued.
I regret that, owing to a clerical error, the date given in my statement of 11 th July was June 28th.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman has now discovered three methods of concealing the truth. The first, is to alter HANSARD after he has made his statement. The second is to introduce a statement which he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and the third is to ascribe an error on a major matter to a clerical error. Would not it be better to alter the rules of the House—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw the observation that the Minister has been concealing the truth.

Mr. Wigg: I will gladly withdraw the words "concealing the truth" and substitute "disguising the facts". Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman made a statement in this House last week which he well knew to be untrue—[HON. MEMBERS: Order.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. All imputations of that character are wholly out of order at Question Time. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw.

Mr. Wigg: I will try again, Sir. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman made a statement in this House last week—[HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.]—which was—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member did not hear me. I said that I must ask him to withdraw the imputation.

Mr. Wigg: That is so, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw, but I will try again. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman made a statement in this House last week which was incorrect, which he knew to be incorrect, and which he took no—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good. It is back to the same thing. I think that it would be tedious if I had repeatedly to ask the hon. Member to withdraw. There is now one more that he has added, which I must ask him to withdraw.

Mr. Wigg: I will gladly withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I am trying hard to be accurate. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman last week made a statement


in this House which was not in accordance with the facts, namely, that General Kassem did not make a statement on the date on which the right hon. Gentleman said he made it. He made no effort to withdraw, alter, or amend HANSARD, and when I put a Question down to him, and having notified his office of the fact, he then sought to transfer the Question to the Lord Privy Seal to avoid having to reply.

Mr. Watkinson: That is not so. As soon as this was drawn to my attention and I recognised that an error had been made, I immediately sent a message to the hon. Gentleman saying that I would be very pleased to answer his Question.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Wavell Wakefield.

Mr. Wigg: I should like to make a categorical statement—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—

Mr. Speaker: My voice is failing to carry. I called the next Question. Sir Wavell Wakefield.

German Forces (United Kingdom)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Defence what payment will be made by the German authorities for the use of the tank training range and other facilities at Castlemartin, and for the transport in the United Kingdom of German troops to Castlemartin.

Mr. Watkinson: The Federal German Government have undertaken to reimburse Her Majesty's Government for all the costs incurred on their behalf in connection with this training.

Mr. Lipton: However deplorable our economic plight may be after ten years of Conservative freedom, are there not some less immoral ways of earning money than this? Would not it be better to wipe the slate clean and not have anything at all to do with this business?

Mr. Watkinson: It might be better if some people tried to wipe the slate clean and remember that the Germans are now our allies and not our enemies.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Motorways

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport far how many miles of new motorway contracts have been

placed since 30th April this year; for how many miles further contracts will be placed before 31st December, 1961; how many miles of motorway are now under construction; and what steps he is taking to expedite construction on those roads where a line is already fixed or proposed.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Since 30th April this year contracts have been placed for 50 miles of new motorway. I hope that contracts for major bridge and tunnel works on the routes of a further 30 miles will be placed by the end of this year. About 170 miles are now under construction.
I am going ahead, as fast as statutory procedures and availability of funds permit, with the detailed preparation on all projects for which lines have been fixed. Preliminary work is meanwhile in hand on some 420 miles of proposed motorway for which lines have not yet been established.

Sir W. Wakefield: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the result to date of the provision of M.1 and other road improvements has been a reduction in accidents and a great saving of time as well as a general improvement? In view of these facts, will he do his utmost to extend even further the work in hand for the future.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister say whether he is being held up in any way from launching a bigger programme by the absence of road-making equipment, civil engineers or manpower?

Mr. Marples: The limiting factor generally is skilled labour, especially in the urban areas.

Mr. Pargiter: Will the Minister assure us that anything that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say next Tuesday will not affect the programme?

Mr. Marples: As I do not know what my right hon. and learned Friend is proposing to say next Tuesday, I do not think that I can give that assurance.

Booklet (Missing Links 3)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport if he has studied the booklet, "Missing Links 3". of which a


copy has been sent to him by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, describing the places where work on A.6, A.31, A.40 and A.56 is required; and when he intends to begin work in these places.

Mr. Marples: I read this publication with interest, but I regret that I cannot yet say when work on these schemes can start. At present I am concentrating available funds mainly upon the early completion of the five major projects and the most urgent classified road schemes in congested urban areas.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some of these places the plans and preparations have been ready and the word to start has been awaited for twenty years or more; that the congestion in all these places is dreadful and the rate of accidents severe? Cannot he give particular attention to this matter and do something at an early date to relieve the congestion and reduce the number of accidents?

Mr. Marples: We are doing quite a lot to relieve congestion and to reduce the number of road accidents. But it is much easier to write a pamphlet than to build a road.

Diesel-Engined Road Vehicles (Fumes)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport what number of accidents occurred in any recent convenient period on British roads resulting directly from dark and black diesel oil fumes from exhausts of road vehicles; and what steps he proposes to take to increase road safety in this respect.

Mr. Marples: I regret that the information requested is not available. Black smoke is often due to misuse of the excess fuel device to obtain extra power. I hope that the new Regulations, which I am laying before the House today, will prove effective in preventing this abuse.

Mr. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that his Regulations, covering—according to what was said yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary for Science—only the matter of the fuel device in the engine, are quite inadequate to deal with the whole of this gravely menacing situation to road safety? Cannot he do something to

secure the proper enforcement of the law as it exists at present?

Mr. Marples: The question of enforcement is one for the police and for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think that the Regulations which are being laid today will represent an important step forward in reducing this evil.

Sir G. Nicholson: If the new Regulations are to be enforceable by the police, is not that taking the whole thing out of the hands of my right hon. Friend? There are many police forces in the country. What relations has my right hon. Friend with those police forces to ensure that the Regulations are enforced?

Mr. Marples: My personal relations with the police are most amicable. As Minister, it is not for me to deal either with the Metropolitan Police or the county police forces. That, speaking Ministerially, is the function of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does not the Minister realise that we are getting fed-up with this "passing the buck"? When a Question was asked of the Parliamentary Secretary for Science he passed it on to the Minister of Transport. Now the Minister of Transport is passing it on to the Home Secretary. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise how extremely dangerous are these diesel fumes and that, when driving along a road, it is quite impossible to pass without danger a vehicle emitting diesel fumes, because one cannot see? Is he aware that these fumes are uncomfortable to drive behind and that therefore there is every incentive to pass? Is he further aware that these fumes make the roads sticky and slippery? Will not the right hon. Gentleman see that some action is taken by the Government in some capacity to deal with this menacing problem?

Mr. Marples: I can only reply that it is a matter for the police and that the police are under the Ministerial direction of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Question be passed on to the Prime 'Minister, when we should have more fog than ever?

Mr. Marples: I will pass on the observations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is very poor today—very poor.

Emission of Fumes (Measurement)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport what uses he now proposes for smoke meters for roadside enforcement, similar in general principle to the Ringelmann Chart in the Clean Air Act, 1956.

Mr. Marples: The Ringelmann Chart is not appropriate for measuring exhaust smoke density, since a suitable background is rarely available at the roadside. My Department is, however, undertaking tests with two other types of measuring device. With these we hope to develop standard test procedures for roadside measurement. This should greatly help the enforcement of the law.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this has now been a problem on our roads for more than twenty years and that the first powers were taken as long ago as 1931, yet there has been no improvement at all? Cannot he do something to infuse a little enthusiasm into scientific research circles, notably D.S.I.R., and as the Minister principally responsible, make them realise that this is probably one of the gravest aspects of our road safety problems?

Mr. Marples: The problem all over the world is to find some sort of suitable device to measure this evil. We are pursuing it actively with the Hartridge B.P. light-absorption meter and the Bosch filter-paper meter. These we consider better than the Ringelmann Chart which my hon. Friend mentioned in his Question but which is not suitable for this purpose.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not say that it was. The Question says "similar in general principle." Does not my right hon. Friend know what a Ringelmann Chart is? If he does not, he ought to go and use one.

Mr. Marples: I could tell my hon. Friend a lot about the Ringelmann Chart. He must—with his great scientific knowledge—have spent a great amount of time with the Hartridge B.P. light-absorption meter and the Bosch filter-paper meter.

I should be happy to discuss these with him later if my hon. Friend can spare the time.

East Riding

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport why no scheme in the East Riding of Yorkshire has so far been included by him in the list of classified road schemes of over £100,000 grant value to be authorised for the periods 1961–62, 1962–63 and 1963–64: and whether he expects to be able to give further consideration to this matter at any early date.

Mr. Marples: The schemes included 6n the three-year classified road programme were selected after careful consideration of national priorities and to give a special emphasis to the needs of congested urban areas. I hope to announce the programme for 1964–65 later this year.

Mr. Wall: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the great improvement in north-south communications with the East Riding, may I ask him to bear in mind the importance of east-west communications between the East and West Ridings?

Mr. Marples: I am not sure that we should confine improvements to the East and West Ridings. I think that the most important are communications across the Pennines from Yorkshire to Lancashire.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Traffic Bill

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement about the future of the Road Traffic Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the rising number of accidents on the roads, he will expedite the passage of the Road Traffic Bill this Session.

Mr. Marples: There is clearly not enough time this Session for the Road Traffic Bill to go through all its stages in this House. There has, however, been valuable discussion of its provisions in another place, and I am sure that the Amendments made to the Bill have improved it considerably.
It is the Government's intention to reintroduce the Bill next Session.

Mr. Strauss: May I ask the Minister why he has concealed the obvious for so long? May I further ask whether it is not the fact that had this Bill been introduced earlier in the Session it would now be law? As its purpose is to reduce the appalling and growing toll of casualties on the road, how can the Government possibly justify giving preference over this Measure to another Measure designed to increase the charges under the health legislation?

Mr. Marples: It is always hazardous for any Minister to predict how long a Measure will take when it is introduced into this House or, for that matter, in another place. This Measure is to be reintroduced next Session and I shall look forward to a great amount of support and assistance from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As this Bill was designed to save lives, may I ask whether the Minister has made any estimate of the number of lives which will be lost as the result of the postponement?

Mr. Marples: That is a hypothetical question and obviously it is something very difficult to measure. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall do my best to get this Bill through in the next Session.

Drivers (Hand Signals)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport why the hand signal is retained as the basic form of signal for drivers of motor vehicles.

Mr. Marples: The hand signal is basic because it is the only signal that can be given by drivers or riders of all types of vehicles; but I regard the use of electric signals as more appropriate for most turning movements.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely dangerous to regard the hand signal as basic at night?

Mr. Marples: Yes, I would, but at the same time I think that when one rides a motor cycle, for example, one ought to know some sort of method of giving

signals by hand, because it is difficult sometimes on some vehicles to have some kind of electrial indicator.

BRITISH ARMY (REGULAR RECRUITMENT)

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): With your permission, Sir, and that of the House, I will make a statement about recruiting for the Regular Army.
I promised to keep the House in touch with progress in this matter. The latest figures show that as far as recruiting from civil life is concerned, we are having a good year. There is an increase of almost 12 per cent. over 1960. I believe that this encouraging fact is due to a great extent to the special measures which I announced in March and we are, of course, only now beginning to see their full effect.
It is now quite clear that television advertising is proving a most successful way of turning on the tap. It has produced an increase of about 20 per cent. in recruits over the same three months of 1960. I have, therefore, decided to extend the present television campaign during the late summer and the autumn. If the results continue to be good, I will arrange a further campaign for the winter and spring to begin after Christmas and extend into the middle of March. This will, in effect, double the scope of the original proposals.
I am anxious to link the Territorial Army as closely as possible to the recruiting drive. Within their ranks are men and women who have the future well-being of the Regular Army very much at heart and who have close contacts with families from which Regular recruits might well come. I am at present in the process of consultations with the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations to see how this can be done. The Council has promised to co-operate to the fullest possible extent.
There is, of course, another side to the picture, and this I call the plug. Clearly, if we are to reach our minimum target on time, we must do everything possible to stop soldiers leaving the Army once they are in it. Here, the picture is not so bright.
I have already told the House of the special measures we are now taking to ensure that recruits are reasonably treated and that they shall give the Army a good try. But we cannot afford to leave anything to chance and I have been carefully studying, with my colleagues on the Army Council, whether there are any particular features of Army life today which are causing discontent and which we can improve by removing legitimate grievances. I think that there are.
The chief one is the enforced separation of a substantial number of soldiers of the British Army of the Rhine from their wives and families because of the lack of married accommodation. I believe this is having a bad effect on the Army. We have vigorously attacked the problem and are now well launched on a programme which will result in the provision of an additional 8,000 quarters over the next three years. This will almost exactly double the existing number. Incidentally, it will effectively solve the separation problem. The first 2,000 of the new quarters will be ready within the next nine months.
As this programme will take time before its effect is fully felt, I propose that during the next two years married unaccompanied soldiers in B.A.O.R. shall have three free leaves a year to this country. I also propose that single men in B.A.O.R. shall during the same period have two free leaves to this country each year.
The House will recall that only recently I announced a new leave scheme for married unaccompanied Service men in theatres outside North-West Europe. My own visits to troops in the Near and Middle East have convinced me that conditions in some stations are still such as to make a tour of two years or more without any home leave most trying to single men. Accordingly, I propose that for the next two years single men in Cyprus, North Africa, Aden and the Persian Gulf shall have one free leave to this country during a tour of two years or more. These leave travel concessions will also apply to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
I hope and believe that these steps will have a marked effect on morale, recruiting and prolongation. Therefore, the way is now open to launch a drive

to get as many soldiers as possible to remain in the Army at the end of their National Service or their current engagements. To this end, I have decided to offer a bounty of £200 to Regular soldiers due to leave the Army before the end of June, 1963, with nine year's service or less, who extend their service by at least three years. This offer will be open as from today until the end of April, 1962. Similarly, a bounty of £200 will be offered to National Service men now serving who from today enlist on a Regular engagement.
I have already explained that I do not believe that we can make any accurate assessment of the success of our recruiting campaign until later in the autumn. But I believe that, taking into consideration the way things are going at present, and with the further measures I have announced, we shall succeed.

Mr. Mayhew: If the Minister is relying on these measures to make a substantial change in the Army manpower picture, I think that it will be disappointing. While the bounty proposals are welcome, is he aware that the application of this principle so far in the case of financial incentives to limited classes of National Service men to enlist for three years has been an almost total failure? While we welcome the provisions for leave for married unaccompanied men from Germany, far more to the point would have been an announcement of the speeding up of building of married quarters in Germany. It is scandalous that there should be a shortage fifteen years after the end of the war.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that careful independent surveys show that he will fail to reach his manpower target by months and that that manpower target, bearing in mind the number of tasks the Government give to the Army and the shortage of air mobility, is too low? What consideration has he given to alleviating the manpower shortage, by a most serious study of ways of acclimatising the new recruit? Has he received a report of the Army Operational Research Group's investigations into this matter and given consideration to the points often put to him from both sides of the House for recruiting for key service overseas and alleviating manpower shortages by better co-operation and integration between the Services?

Mr. Profumo: I shall do my best to answer the questions which the hon. Member has asked me. I do not think that we should correlate too closely the scheme which I announced earlier and which, I quite agree, was not successful because that scheme applied only to the technical corps who, on reflection, are the people most likely to have civilian jobs waiting for them. This scheme goes over the whole field, primarily of Regular soldiers, but also of National Service men. There are 54,000 National Service men still to serve and 7,900 Regulars whose contract of service will come to an end before the end of 1963.
My statement showed clearly that we are speeding up the building of married quarters in Germany. One of the great difficulties has been that of getting land and also the pressure on building which exists in Germany to the same extent as here. When the hon. Member reads my announcement, I think that he will see that it is a great improvement on what we have been doing up to now.
Everyone has his own ideas about whether we shall succeed or not. I believe that we shall succeed. To try to persuade him of this—because it is important that the Opposition as well as the Government should believe that we shall succeed—I can tell the hon. Member that the latest figures of recruiting for June, which have not yet been announced, are 27 per cent. above those for last year.
I have already announced what we are doing to try to acclimatise recruits. I think that we are doing a great deal and I do not intend to go any further because we would be in danger of destroying discipline, which is something we certainly must not do. I have not received a report from the Army Operational Research Group, but we are considering recruiting men from overseas. We already have 100 colonials in the Army.

Sir C. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend say how much the two proposals —the pay increase and the extra accommodation in Germany—will cost, and whether these proposals have been put to the Chancellor before he makes up his mind about what he is to say next week?

Mr. Profumo: It is very difficult to tell exactly what these proposals will cost, because it depends on how many we manage to get in on the bounty. I think that my hon. Friend can work it out, as he is far better at mathematics than I am. It costs about £1 million per 5,000 new people. The cost of building in Germany is very difficult to estimate, because we do not buy the married quarters. The Germans build them and we invest in them and rent them. Therefore, it is not a cost in the terms which my hon. Friend has in mind.
The total cost of the leave programme will be £400,000 a year. I consulted my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this before making my statement.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I personally welcome these proposals and hope that their results will be beneficial? The bounty is by no means an innovation. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, financial incentives have been provided before to induce men to remain longer in the Services, although the amount proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is in excess of previous amounts. Does he not realise that this increased expenditure, particularly the expenditure on married quarters in Europe, which is a very desirable proposal, is bound to cost a considerable amount of money? How does that square with what the Chancellor has said about a reduction in overseas military expenditure? Is it not likely overall, in Europe, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, to mean increased military expenditure?

Mr. Profumo: When the right hon. Gentleman reads his statement, I think that he will feel that our plains for further married quarters in Germany are good—I know that he agrees with them, but I mean good financially. If we were to invest millions of pounds of our own, with foreign currency, in real estate the right hon. Gentleman would be right, but the way in which we do this is to hire the quarters. That is the way in which it can be done most cheaply and most flexibly if at any time we have to cut down further on overseas expenditure. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that nothing my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has yet said has shown that


we do not have to have adequate defence forces, and that is the purpose of my statement.

Mr. B. Harrison: While admiring my right hon. Friend's faith, can he tell us which garrisons overseas will be reduced, as it will not be possible to maintain our present garrisons even if he succeeds in getting 165,000 men?

Mr. Profumo: I have told my hon. Friend before that I cannot support the argument that we cannot maintain our garrisons. We intend to continue to carry out our international commitments. If my hon. Friend wants information about any of our individual overseas posts, I will gladly try to answer a separate question.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the increase in the bounty will do the trick? Is it not more likely that it will just succeed in giving more money to the men who would have signed on in any case?

Mr. Profumo: There are always those who will get the benefit of a bounty of this sort. I do not conceal that my prognostications showed me that certain men would have signed on anyway, and they are lucky. I do not think that the bounty alone will do the trick, but it is one of the things which will help. There is no question of failure. This is a progress report and any progress report is a check point at which one checks to see how one is doing. We then haroosh on, and that is what we are doing.

Sir J. Maitland: My right hon. Friend went out of his way to say that the new leave arrangements would apply to the other Services. Is the same true of the bounty?

Mr. Profumo: The bounty will not apply to the other Services, because there are particular recruiting problems for the Army. I am happy to take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend for their co-operation in this matter. The bounty does not apply to the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force, and that is one of the reasons, as the House may have noticed, why I have kept this offer open only for a certain time.

Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if the

Government do not get 165,000 men by 31st December, 1962, the undertaking of the 1957 White Paper still stands, namely, that they will reintroduce some form of National Service? Secondly, in his earlier scheme, which was announced this year and which is obviously a failure, the bounty was given for men re-engaging in a particular arm of the Service. Under the new scheme, can a man now re-engage or extend his service irrespective of the arm of the Service which he chooses? Has he the right to re-engage in any arm, or must he go into the unit which the Government choose? I have a vested interest in my third question. All the way through his statement the right hon. Gentleman spoke of leave from Germany and the bounty being applied to men only. I have a daughter serving in the British Army of the Rhine. Will it apply to her?

Mr. Profumo: I have great respect for the hon. Member's male and female members of the family serving in the Armed Forces. For "male" read "male and female". I apologise for that. The answer to his second question is that a man can now join or continue in any arm of the Service he likes. That is because over the whole Service men can now decide to go on in any section of the Army they choose and still get the bounty.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my first question, about the undertaking in the 1957 White Paper?

Mr. Profumo: I omitted to answer the hon. Gentleman's first question, because he knows the answer very well. I have nothing to add to the statement previously made by my right hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter without a Question before the House.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (GROUND READ-OUT STATION, ICIRKBRIDE)

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement.
Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of


America have agreed to establish a ground read-out station of the Missile Defence Alarm System, MIDAS. This will be situated at the Royal Air Force Station, Kirkbride, in Cumberland. The text of the agreement is available as a White Paper in the Vote Office.
MIDAS is now under development by the United States Government. It will consist of a number of space satellites equipped with infra-red apparatus to detect ballistic missiles in the early stages of their flight. Information recorded in the satellites will be relayed back to read-out stations, including the one at Kirkbride.
This information will complement that provided by the ballistic missile early warning radar system. It will give even earlier warning than the ballistic missile early warning system; and will make it even more difficult for an enemy to launch a successful surprise attack on Western strategic deterrent forces. Our contribution co this new system will thus be of direct value to the Royal Air Force, the United States air force and to the forces of our other North Atlantic Treaty allies.
Kirkbride will be commanded and operated by the Royal Air Force. Warning information from the MIDAS satellites will be available simultaneously to operations centres in the United Kingdom and the United States, and to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
The United States will provide and install the special equipment for the station and the communications required to link it with the United States. The United States will also defray, in the first instance, the cost of the technical works services required to make the station operational. The United Kingdom will repay these costs within an agreed limit, after the station becomes operational.
The United Kingdom will provide the land, domestic accommodation, and certain existing buildings as well as the communications and equipment required to link the station with our own authorities. The cost of spare parts for the special equipment provided by the United States will be borne by the United States Government, for the first five years of operation. The cost of maintaining this equipment on the site

will be borne by the United Kingdom Government, as will the other running costs of the station.
The capital cost of the station to this country is expected to be in the region of £2 million to £3 million. Its capital cost to the United States is expected to be about £10 million. But this latter figure is, of course, a very small part of the projected United States expenditure on the system as a whole. The United States Government have already allotted £150 million for MIDAS, of which well over half has already been spent.

Mr. Mason: Now that it appears that the Government have acknowledged the sky spy plan of America and that we are to assist them to relay information following the orbiting of MIDAS, do I take it that it is to stop there, or is it the Government's intention eventually to afford the Americans facilities at Woomera and possibly also at Christmas Island, so that we will have further launching places to get a global coverage for spying?

Mr. Amery: "Spying" is an altogether inappropriate word to use in this case. It is simply a question of increasing our defensive posture. I do not think that anybody can object to this, unless he has offensive intentions. My statement referred exclusively to Kirkbride, in Cumberland.

Dr. D. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Carlisle and the surrounding area there will be a general welcome for the announcement that he has just made, both on the basis of Anglo-American co-operation and as a stimulus to local employment?

Mr. Amery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mulley: No doubt other questions will occur to us when we have had an opportunity of studying the White Paper, but I want to ask the Secretary of State these questions right away. First, when is it expected that the system will be available, because the announcement in connection with MIDAS III, which was launched a week ago, was that it is still experimental. Secondly, can he tell us a little more about how this system will fit into the existing ballistic missile early warning system? Will it be wholly additional,


or will it mean some readjustment in the existing plan? Thirdly, to what extent will the information be fed into the European defence system and N.A.T.O.? Is there any possibility of any N.A.T.O. infrastructure funds being available for the costs involved?
Finally, can the Secretary of State do something to clear up the financial arrangement? Apparently there is the rather unusual arrangement that the United States Government will pay and we will repay them. Is our commitment limited to the £2 to £3 million, or do we, in due course, also have to repay the balance of the £10 million which I think the right hon. Gentleman expected to be the initial United States contribution?

Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will prompt me if I forget all his questions—I am sorry, but I have already forgotten what his first question was.

Mr. Mulley: I asked, first, when the system would be available.

Mr. Amery: The project is under development. I should not like to forecast a definite date for when it will come into service. I think that the hon. Gentleman's second question was how it will fit into the ballistic missile early warning system. This project is quite distinct from the early warning system, but will complement it. The early warning system to be erected at Fylingdales is a radar system with a definite horizon. It is extremely precise and will enable us to track missile paths very accurately.
On the other hand, the MIDAS programme overlooks the whole world and will enable us to know of any satellite launched from any direction, which the early warning system at Fylingdales would not. The early warning system at Fylingdales will come into service considerably earlier than the MIDAS system, but the two will be very useful alongside one another. As I said in my statement, the MIDAS system will also give us considerably earlier warning than the Fylingdales system.
I think that the hon. Gentleman's next point concerned the cost. The financial provision is a very generous one on the part of the United States—

that is to say, we are not involved in any costs until the station becomes operational—unless and until it becomes operational. Thus, the total figure of the cost would be, within the agreed limit, nothing like £10 million. It would be a very much smaller sum.

Mr. Mulley: What is the agreed limit? What is the point of the Minister mentioning £2 million to £3 million in his statement unless the Government can say that this is the agreed limit? Have we an additional commitment over and above that?

Mr. Amery: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I would rather not go into the details of the agreed limit. If I did so, I might prejudice the Government's position in contracts which are to be negotiated.

Mr. Mulley: It is rather unsatisfactory when the Secretary of State comes to the House with a prepared statement and himself mentions a figure as being the United Kingdom contribution if he cannot say whether it will be the total United Kingdom contribution. This is a large question. Although we shall obviously want an opportunity to study the matter further, the right hon. Gentleman should give a little more information. He also said that it would track all satellites. Is be satisfied that we shall not have any complications because of confusion between a peaceful scientific satellite and a missile?

Mr. Amery: On the first point. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should take me to task on it. I have said that the capital cost will be £2 million to £3 million. The amount we reimburse the United States will be very small but, because we have contracts to negotiate, I do not want to indicate precisely what amount it will be. I think that it is a very generous provision on the American side. They are not going to call for a contribution from us unless and until the station becomes effectively operational.
On the point of confusion, I do not think that there is any great risk here. In any case, we would not take any offensive action on any news we receive by this system. The most we would ever do would be to scramble our aircraft, just to make sure that they would not be subject to attack.

Mr. B. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the information collected by MIDAS will be available as of right to the United Kingdom authorities?

Mr. Amery: Yes, simultaneously.

Mr. M. Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman has said that this piece of mechanism will complement the ballistic missile early warning system, will he tell us how much time will be available for warning the authorities in this country of a rocket or a satellite set off by a potential enemy? How much time will this mechanism give us as compared with the previous so-called early warning system? Would the information come to this country, or is this apparatus intended merely to supply the United States with information of this nature?

Mr. Amery: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), the information will be available simultaneously to us and to the United States. I stress the word "simultaneously". The warning time that we shall get would vary with the location of any rocket by which we were attacked, the trajectory of the rocket and various other circumstances peculiar to the mode of attack.
In all circumstances the station would give us, on our present calculations, a considerable margin over and above that which we would get from the Fylingdales system. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"] It would vary with the trajectory of the rocket and the place where it is sited. It could be several minutes. It could be a few minutes. It would vary with the point from which the attack was launched.

Sir C. Osborne: My right hon. Friend said that we are not to repay the £3 million capital until the station becomes operational. When will that be? Will it be in the coming financial year? Will the cost of maintaining the station add considerably to the Vote that his Department already has and, if so, by how much?

Mr. Amery: No. We are satisfied that it will not add very much to the Vote of the Department. I do not think that the figure for repayment will be as much as my hon. Friend seemed to gather from listening to my statement. I

do not think that there will be any cost in the financial year ahead, but I cannot be quite sure.

Mr. Reynolds: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), the right hon. Gentleman said that we will not have to pay anything until the station becomes operational, and then he suddenly interjected the words "unless and until". What does he mean by "unless"? Is there some doubt about the whole project still? Is it still very much in the experimental stage, or is it a definite project which is to take place, in which case what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "unless"?

Mr. Amery: I was only being cautious by nature. We are confident that this system will work. That is why I am making this statement to the House. I was merely underlining what seemed to be a very favourable provision in the agreement and one on which I think the United States has been generous. Until the system is operational there is no charge. I do not think that there is any danger that it would not prove operational, but if it did not prove operational there would equally be no charge.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, we cannot debate this now. There is no Question before the House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could use your influence with Ministers. Two Ministers have just made two very contentious statements, involving the country in heavy cost as a result of prospective expenditure. Is it possible for you to use your influence with Ministers to ensure that they do not make two such statements on the same day, thus avoiding what some of us think are relevant questions in the national interest?

Mr. Speaker: Nobody is avoiding any relevant questions. I am only concerned with the time of the House. I think that everybody regrets it if there have to be two statements on one day, but I dare say that it is sometimes inevitable. I do not have any control over these Ministers.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Pargiter: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal statement.
Arising from my Question of 5th June in regard to Mr. Frederick Beezley, and the Written Answer to it by the Attorney-General, and the subsequent allegations made in the House on 7th June that I had made false and unjustifiable accusations against Mr. Beezley, who, at the material time, was employed in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, I wish to say that on the evidence available to me I am satisfied that I had good reason to put down this Question. I did so in complete good faith.
I am prepared to submit to the Attorney-General further material available to me.

PUBLIC LAVATORIES (ABOLITION OF TURNSTILES)

4.1 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the restriction by any local authority of access to a public lavatory or sanitary convenience by means of a turnstile; and to provide for the removal of such turnstiles.
This is not a subject which I would normally choose to raise by way of a Private Member's Bill, but the Minister has left me no alternative. During the past few years there has been a growing practice among local authorities of erecting steel barriers across the entrance to public lavatories complete with a turnstile which can be operated only by the insertion of 1d. The justification for this tendency given by the local authorities is that they can at one and the same time dispense with the services of an attendant and raise more revenue.
The erection of a turnstile means that there is no chance of any woman, however urgent her need, evading payment of this impost, and this is, therefore, an extension of an injustice and inconvenience already experienced by women in having to pay for this facility, because a turnstile means that there is not even one free convenience available in any public lavatory for use in an emergency. My Bill would not raise the question directly of the payment or non-payment by women for the use of conveniences, but it is a relevant point that the practice of installing turnstiles means that payment in every case is unavoidable.
The distress caused by these turnstiles to many women, to elderly persons and to handicapped persons has been totally ignored by the local authorities, and, as a result, the protests of a large number of organistions have been mounting during the past few years. Resolutions demanding the abolition of these turnstiles have been passed by a number of bodies, including old-age pensioners' associations, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Congress of Co-operative Women's Guilds, the National Association of Women's Clubs, the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds, and, not least, the National Council of Women.
The National Council of Women is an all-embracing body of organisations representing women of all parties, all religious beliefs and a large number of important professions. In 1959, at its annual conference, it passed a resolution urging
Her Majesty's Government to prohibit the use of all turnstiles in public lavatories in view of the distress caused to elderly women, expectant mothers, mothers with young children, the physically handicapped and people taken ill, especially in view of the liability to mechanical faults which is admitted by the manufacturers.
In May of this year the National Council of Women asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to receive a deputation to hear the widespread view of women on this matter, and the Minister refused.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I regret to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is misinformed. I have told the National Council of Women—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not our practice to allow interruption during an application to bring in a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule.

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, but I am really only stating the facts, Mr. Speaker. The Minister refused on the ground that turnstiles are part of the internal design of public lavatories and that this is a matter for local authorities in which he has no power to intervene, and he suggested that the National Council of Women should first write to the local authority associations to find out what their reaction would be.
But the National Council of Women had already written to the local authority associations, and the replies which it had received had been totally negative. The Association of Municipal Corporations informed it that it was quite impossible for the Association to communicate with all its members
on a general complaint of this nature.
The Urban District Councils' Association said that it did not feel that this was a matter upon which the Association could make any representations or issue advice to its members. The Rural District Councils' Association said that it thought it could "add little" to the

weight of the representations already being made directly by the National Council of Women.
That is why the National Council of Women is now of the view that the central authority must accept responsibility for imposing this policy upon local authorities. My Bill would give the Minister power to do what he says he has now not got the power to do, and, therefore, I hope and believe that he will welcome the Bill.
The case for the Bill is not a frivolous one. Since tabling my original Question to the Minister, I have had letters from more than 140 people. In addition to those, I have had letters from the secretaries of various organisations. Not one of these letters has expressed any disagreement. On the contrary, I have been astonished at the intensity of feeling expressed on this matter from all parts of the country and from women of all shades of political views.
I would not go quite so far as the lady from Lindfield, in Sussex, who wrote to say that she thanked heaven that someone was ready to take up a really important matter designed to make life on this earth a little better instead of dealing with all the sputniks and atomic bombs. None the less, I have been shaken by the evidence that has been pouring in to me, through my postbag, of the anger that women feel at the inconvenience and indignity they are suffering every day of the week because of these turnstiles. A woman wrote to me:
It seems disgusting that women have to pay at all, but these implements of torture are the crowning insult to our womanhood.
The various degrees of inconvenience suffered are, I hope, now better known to hon. Members as a result of the correspondence which I hope they have had, but it takes various forms. We can all imagine the difficulties of women coming along laden with heavy shopping baskets and having to cope with a cumbersome turnstile. There was one lady from Grantham who wrote to me that she was badly bruised when a turnstile hit back at her as she was trying to struggle through.
There is the question of queueing. I was told about one lady who had to queue for ten minutes at the turnstile in


Hammersmith while carrying a heavy suitcase in her hand. The delays caused by these wretched turnstiles can be most inconvenient when large parties of women who may be taking part in a coach trip have to try to make use in a hurry of the appropriate convenience.
What is more, the local authorities, when arguing that this dispenses with the need for an attendant, overlook the fact that very often these turnstiles are out of order and women may be faced by such embarrassing notices as that on the convenience in Ashbourne, Derbyshire, which carried an official notice, "If unable to operate the turnstile, please contact butcher at adjoining premises."
I have had case after case brought to my attention of bad coins sometimes being used and of how that can easily render a turnstile inoperable. I am told that it is possible for thin women to be able to skip over the top, but callous councils, not to be outdone, have erected a new type of turnstile which some of my women correspondents describe as "gorilla cages", which go from ceiling to floor so that no helpless woman should be able to climb over the top however great the emergency. One of the women described this type of turnstile as like a prison. "Is it a crime in this country to spend 1d.?", the woman asked.
Of course, the difficulty of the stouter women can easily be visualised when they genuinely find that they cannot pass through the turnstile. One lady from Norwich mentions that her dimensions are 52–47–52 and that she has had some "very very alarming experiences" but apart from these what might be considered lighter aspects of this problem, the truth, of course, is that these turnstiles are not only gravely inconvenient, but downright dangerous.
I have received letters from elderly ladies stating that they have been trapped in these turnstiles because they are too weak to operate them. I received one letter from a woman in Southall, Middlesex, who writes:
Only last Thursday we took two coach loads from the Ealing Sisterhood to Folkestone for their annual outing. Some were aged 80 to 90 and one poor cripple got caught between the turnstile and we had difficulty in releasing her and she was in great pain.
Even more serious is the evidence coming to me of the danger of these turnstiles

to the handicapped. There are stories coming to me of outings of handicapped people in wheelchairs who are in a grave dilemma when they find that the only public convenience available is barred to them by a turnstile.
I have had letters about the difficulties of spastics in this connection and one from a member of the Invalid Tricycle Association stressing their difficulties. I also have a letter from the divisional superintendent of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, Nottingham City area, who has given me permission to quote from it. He writes:
For some years now I have been escorting coachloads of disabled people on day trips to various parts of the country from the Nottingham district … on many occasions I have experienced considerable difficulty in getting disabled people through the high turnstiles …
That is why I have today received a letter of support from the Infantile Paralysis Fellowship pointing out that among their membership there are 10,000 disabled persons many of whom are caused a severe problem and difficulty as a result of turnstiles.
The British Rheumatism and Arthritis Association has written to the Minister with the request that a deputation on this matter should be received, and pointing out that there are a large number of cripples among their membership and adding:
Turnstiles are like a brick wall to these people.
There are 3 million people in this country suffering from some form of arthritic disability. Many of them cannot grip or push, so that, even if they are not actually crippled, turnstiles are an absolute outrage to them and an interference with the satisfaction of their urgent needs.
This problem is common to both sexes, but one aspect of it is special to women; that which faces pregnant women and women with young children when they are faced with this type of barrier. I draw this example to the attention of the House in order to stress the importance of this aspect. My correspondent, writing about her problem on a visit to Weymouth, when negotiating a turnstile, comments:
Not only are women with children required to negotiate steep steps, they are faced at the foot of them with a floor to ceiling iron grid turnstile. Imagine negotiating that


with a three-year-old, too frightened to go first, not tall enough to put in the penny to go second, and a toddler or baby that cannot be carried through. If you are having another baby as well, it is completely impossible.
Yet these are the women who should have priority in this matter, and that is why I have been informed that the Royal College of Midwives is giving its full support to my proposed Bill.
It is hopeless to argue that we can leave this matter to the good sense of local authorities. I will quote an example of the difficulties that the women's organisations are up against when they try to bring these matters to the attention of their local authorities. The secretary of the Upton Magna and District Women's Social Service Club has sent me correspondence which she has had with the clerk of the Urban District Council of Whitchurch.

Mr. Speaker: There is a difficulty about this. We cannot allow hon. Members asking leave to bring in a Bill to make the kind of speeches that they would make on Second Reading if they got that leave. I am only allowed to permit short statements in explanation.

Mrs. Castle: If I could crave your indulgence for a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker, I was coming to the close of my remarks. The letter I had mentioned contains the crux of the case for this House having these powers.
The reply which this lady received from the clerk stated that he would draw the complaint to the attention of the council and added:
I consider, however, that it is highly improbable that any local authority will decide to discontinue the use of turnstiles as they are a source of appreciable revenue and you may be interested to know that a sum of £297 3s. 4d. was derived from this particular turnstile in the financial year 1959–60. I agree, of course, that a turnstile is a means of annoyance to many people but it is generally accepted that the revenue received is vastly greater and warrants the installation of this

equipment which, as you so well know, ensures that each and every member of the public pays the sum of 1d. for the privilege of using the conveniences.
The clerk goes on to express the hope that some day a local authority will be courageous enough to put turnstiles in gentlemen's conveniences as well. I say, therefore, that this is a case for the central authority taking powers to intervene in this matter because this scandal has gone on for too long. The women of Britain will no longer tolerate this injustice and indignity.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Can you tell me whether there is any procedure by which I could point out that the Minister has agreed to receive a deputation while, at the same time, supporting the hon. Lady's Bill?

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not on a point of order.

Dame Irene Ward: I was just asking for guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have occasionally to say that I am not here to give guidance, but to rule on points of order.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Castle, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Brockway, Mrs. Butler, Mr. Chetwynd, Mr. Cronin, Dr. Dickson Mabon, Mrs. McLoughlin, Dr. Stross, Mrs. Thatcher, and Mr. Thornton.

PUBLIC LAVATORIES (ABOLITION OF TURNSTILES)

Bill to prohibit the restriction by any local authority of access to a public lavatory or sanitary convenience by means of a turnstile; and to provide for the removal of such turnstiles, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

New Clause.—(ADJUSTMENT OF GROSS VALUE BY REFERENCE TO PROVISION OF OR PAYMENT FOR SERVICES, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 8, at end insert new Clause A:

(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purpose of ascertaining the gross value of a hereditament in cases where it falls to be ascertained by reference to the rent payable in respect of that or some other hereditament (hereinafter referred to as the standard hereditament) and either or both the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say, the rent of the standard hereditament is partly attributable to the provision by the landlord of services in relation to that hereditament (including the repair, maintenance or insurance of premises not forming part of that hereditament) or the tenant, in addition to the rent, contributes towards the cost of any such services.

(2) Where the rent of the standard hereditament is partly attributable to the provision by the landlord of such services, the sum falling to be deducted from that rent for the said purpose as being the amount attributable to the provision of those services shall not include any amount in respect of—

(a) any profit made, or which might be expected to be made, by the landlord in providing those services;
(b) the cost of repairs to, and maintenance and insurance of, premises not forming part of that hereditament.

(3) Where the tenant of the standard hereditament, in addition to the rent,

(a) makes payments to the landlord in consideration of the landlord undertaking to provide any such services in relation to that hereditament; or
(b) otherwise contributes (directly or indirectly and whether in pursuance of an undertaking to do so or not) to the cost of repairing, maintaining or insuring other premises not forming part of that hereditament but belonging to or occupied by the landlord, being premises which the landlord has not undertaken to repair, maintain or insure, as the case may be;
the rent shall for the purpose of ascertaining gross value be treated as increased by the amount of the payments or other contributions made by the tenant or, where those amounts vary from time to time, by a sum which on a proper estimate equals the average annual amount so paid or contributed.

(4) Nothing in the foregoing subsection shall be taken to prejudice any right to make a deduction from the rent of a hereditament, for the purpose of ascertaining gross value, in respect of services provided by the landlord or other matters.

(5) Any reference in the foregoing provisions of this section to premises includes a reference to any plant or machinery which by virtue of section twenty-four of the Act of 1925 is treated as part of those premises for rating purposes or would be so treated if those premises were a rateable hereditament.

(6) In the definition of "gross value" in section sixty-eight of the Act of 1925, the proviso (which provides that no account shall be taken of the value of services provided by the landlord and which has become unnecessary) shall cease to have effect.

(7) An alteration in a valuation list made in pursuance of a proposal made for the purpose of giving effect to any of the foregoing provisions of this section, being an alteration which would by virtue of subsection (1) of section forty-two of the Act of 1948 (alterations retrospective to beginning of current rate period) be deemed to have had effect as from a date before the passing of this Act, shall be deemed to have had effect as from the passing of this Act."

4.21 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a substantial Amendment. This new Clause is necessary to remove an anomaly in the law which has been revealed by a decision of the Lands Tribunal on an appeal by the Peachey Property Corporation. If, following that Lands Tribunal decision, the law were left unchanged it would mean that occupiers of flats would get an unfair advantage in their rating, and all other ratepayers, notably the occupiers of houses, would have to pay more rates because of the extra relief enjoyed by the flats.
I think that I should explain to the House that in the case of a block of flats there are four stages in the process of determining their rateable value. First, the rents of all individual flats are aggregated. Then, from that aggregate, the cost of any services provided by the landlord is deducted. That is the second stage. The third stage is to reapportion that amount among the flats so as to arrive at the gross value of each individual flat. Finally, a deduction on a statutory scale is made from gross value to net annual value to take account of repairs, maintenance, and so forth.
The question at issue is what it is permissible to deduct at the second stage. In 1940, at which time there was no statutary scale of deductions for flats in London, though there was in the provinces, the Court of Appeal decided in a London case, the Bell Property Trust case, that the cost of repairs and maintenance of the common parts of a block of flats—that is staircases, corridors, lifts, and so forth—could be deducted at the second stage. That case was decided not under the present law, but under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.
When the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, came along it assimilated the law in London with the law in the rest of the country as regards ascertainment of net annual value from gross value, except perhaps that there were slightly different statutory scales of deduction, but that is neither here nor there so far as this new Clause is concerned. It has always been the belief of the Government that the 1955 Act brought to an end the curious arrangement established in London, though not in the provinces, by the 1940 decision of the Court of Appeal, and the Valuation Office has done its valuing accordingly.
The Lands Tribunal, however, has now ruled on an appeal relating to the same block of flats in London that the 1940 decision still applies. In other words, the 1955 Act is not effective, as the Government always thought it was, to alter the 1940 decision.
The purpose of this Clause, which, I should make clear, is in no way retrospective, is to establish that from the coming into force of the Bill the law shall be as the Government believed it to be from 1956 onwards and as the valuers believed it to be when making the 1956 valuation lists which are still in force. If we did not introduce this new Clause the effect would be that the owners of a block of flats could deduct from the gross rental the cost of repairs and maintenance to roofs, staircases, corridors, lifts, access drives, and so forth, and then make a second deduction from the gross value of each individual flat according to the percentage scale.
But, of course, the rents of the flats are partly and, indeed, largely determined by the fact that the block as a whole has staircase's, lifts, corridors, an

access path, or drive, and so forth. One would not get much rent for a flat on the tenth storey if there were no lift, and it is to a gross value related to the full rent that the percentage deduction is applied. In fact, the law as it stands, as determined by the Lands Tribunal, gives a twofold deduction in respect of some of the necessary repair and maintenance work. That cannot possibly be fair in relation to the ordinary householder, who gets only the simple percentage deduction on the rental value of his house.
I could give more details of the unfairnesses if the House desired it, but the sole purpose of the Clause is to put beyond doubt that from the coming into operation of the Bill the deduction from gross value to net annual value in the case of flats will be on the same basis as in the case of houses. There are consequential Amendments to page 22, line 15, and page 36, line 35.
I am sorry that I did not have this now Clause ready in time to introduce at an earlier stage in this House. I gather that some suspicions have been raised that we were trying to smuggle it through in another place. The simple truth is that consideration of the implications of the Lands Tribunal decision took some time, as did the drafting of the Clause. We had quite a lot to do, with the Housing Bill on our hands at the same time as this Bill, and maybe I was negligent in not hurrying on the drafting of this Clause sufficiently.
We did not have it ready in time, and for that I can only express my apologies; but I am sure that Parliament ought not to let the Bill reach the Statute Book with this obvious defect in the law uncorrected.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: So far as the Minister is personally concerned, no one would hesitate for a moment to accept his apologies. But the timetable requires a little more explanation than that. As he explained to the House, valuations have been carried out on a given basis, in effect on the basis sought to be introduced by this Amendment, for many years past. The Lands Tribunal decision in the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was given on 21st September, 1960, and the report which I have before


me appeared a few days later, on 8th October, 1960.
The Bill reached its Report stage in this House on 10th May, 1961, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had well over six months in which to appreciate the effect of a decision and to prepare a suitable Clause. I am not attacking him personally, but I am saying that he and his Department really ought to do better than that. The Department must have appreciated it long before 10th May, 1961.
4.30 p.m.
What was the next stage? On 18th May, 1961, eight days after the Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman was asked a pertinent question by one of his hon. Friends—whether it was one of those questions which he had asked to be asked, I cannot tell—and he explained that the new Clause was to be introduced in another place. It was so introduced. But it is too much to have a matter of this sort left to another place, where it involves a question of privilege, and neglected here when, after all, we were a very long time in Committee on this matter and the Bill as a whole did not leave the Report stage until 10th May, the decision in question having been given on the previous 21st September. It is far too long a gap. The Ministry must wake up in matters of this sort. It is really too bad to have it brought in in this way.
I shall not make any objection to the new Clause. In my view, there is a good deal to be said for it. But let us suppose that it had been a matter which involved some question of amendment or other detailed questions. It would be most inconvenient to have it brought forward in the form of a Lords Amendment for consideration here. I trust that the Ministry will wake up. We all know the enormous and varied tasks which it has to face. We appreciate that. Nevertheless, this kind of thing must stop, even if it means going a little slowly over other legislation, as the right hon. Gentleman might well have done in connection with some of the past Statutes he has introduced.
On the merits of the matter, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the effect of leaving the law as it is at present would he that householders would have

one deduction in respect of, say, an access road while flat holders would have two deductions. Obviously, no one ought to allow them to have two deductions. But the two deductions are not by any means as clear as all that. The first deduction is the one it is sought to stop now. The second one is said to be found in the statutory deductions, the fractional or percentage deduction which is allowed for rating purposes now in London, as it always has been, as far as I know, in the provinces. It is the inclusion of that statutory deduction which, I think, has given rise to a certain amount of trouble.
The real question seems to be this. When looking at flats for rating purposes, does one include in the flat itself the staircase and the lift outside? There was authority before the Bell case—I need not go into it now—for saying that one did include the whole thing, the part, share or interest—call it what one likes—in the staircase and in the lift. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the rent would not be so high if there were no lift. I go a little further and say that, if there were no staircase, the rent would be even lower.
It is really absurd that matters should have got into the position in which they appeared to be at the time of the Lands Tribunal decision. I do not think that we are called upon to inquire how far there was any error in that decision, in the Bell decision or in other matters; but, clearly, it is right to put the flat holder and the householder in a similar position, and that is what the new Clause in the Lords Amendment is intended to do. So far as I can judge, it does that and no more.

Mr. Graham Page: Of course, I accept my right hon. Friend's apologies for the late arrival of the new Clause in the form of this Lords Amendment, but I think it was quite right of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to point out the difficulties in which we are placed by an Amendment of this nature arriving at such a late stage, especially after a great deal of time had been spent on the Bill in Committee. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee myself, but I read the OFFICIAL REPORTS of the proceedings in a hospital bed and I noticed that on many occasions my


right hon. Friend or the Parliamentary Secretary, in dealing with constructive Amendments or new Clauses put forward, said that there would be another Bill later in which such matters could be included. Yet, at this late stage, my right hon. Friend brings forward a new Clause of this sort which has caused a great deal of consternation among flat dwellers and flat owners.
My right hon. Friend said that the new Clause was to do away with an anomaly. I do not think that there is any anomaly in the present law. He said that it was to bring about fairness between the rating of flats and the rating of houses. I do not think that there is any unfairness. The point is quite simple. In order to ascertain the gross value of a flat, one takes the actual rent and deducts from it the cost of services. It has been recognised for generations that that is the way to assess, first, the gross value and, thence, the rateable value of a flat. In 1953, that was slightly amended. The Act then said that, in deducting the value of the services, one should not deduct the profits which the landlord makes out of those services; one left those as part of the gross value of the flats.
Now, by this new Clause, there is a further change, that, when deducting the cost of the services, one shall not deduct in future
the cost of repairs to, and maintenance and insurance of, premises not forming part of the hereditament".
There is a point which my right hon. Friend has not entirely cleared up. This, of course, is recognised as an alteration of the law as decided in what I call for convenience the Peachey case in September last. That law had already been decided in the Bell Property case in 1939. Valuers of dwelling houses are at present required to value on the basis of 1939 values, until we come to 1963 when the valuation will be on current values.
At present, in valuing dwelling houses, including flats, a valuer takes the 1939 value. He must, therefore, take the law as it was understood in 1939 and has been understood until this Amendment. I would like my right hon. Friend to confirm that, so far as present valuations are concerned, there will be no change in what I call the Peachey law, the law as

decided in the Peachey case, that valuers will take the value of flats as in 1939, with the law as it was understood to be, and indeed was, at that time.
What will the new Clause do when we come to 1963? In what way will it affect values at that time? I gather that it will not cause any alteration in values as they appear on the valuation lists at present. I understand that valuers have been valuing on this basis set out in the new Clause since 1956, assuming that that was the law, and not until September last did they realise that it was not the law. Therefore, valuations are already made on the basis of the new Clause, which I say is wrong because the law was settled by the Peachey case and should continue to be so until 1963; indeed, despite this new Clause it will remain so until 1963. That involves, therefore, the alteration—should owners of flats desire to put in proposals for alteration—of all valuation lists relating to flats. I believe that any flat dweller has the right to do that now. He has this right because the law is as it was in 1939 and the valuers are required to value on the basis of 1939 values.
What will happen eventually under this Clause is that we shall take into account, in ascertaining the gross value of flats, the cost of the services of access to the flats. Perhaps it might assist the House if we look for a moment at the items which were claimed by the valuation officer for inclusion in the gross value in the Peachey case and which the valuer for the owners of the flats denied should be included. These are the sort of things which will be now included under this new Clause.
There is, first, the upkeep of roads—and I presume that means access roads to the block of flats. A dwelling-house is not assessed on the cost of upkeep of a road or access road, so where is the unfairness in the present law between flat dwellers and house dwellers in these circumstances? Further items which will now be included are decorations of stairs and passages, fire extinguishers, depreciation of fittings, repairs to common parts, and repairs to lifts, boilers, plant, and baggage rooms, and special perils insurance. These are the items which the valuer in the Peachey case had excluded and which the valuation officer


introduced as part of the gross value. That will be the effect of this Clause.

Mr. Mitchison: It is worse than that. The hon. Member has forgotten the roads and the boilers. They are lower down in the list.

Mr. Page: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that I did mention those items. Perhaps he was studying the case a little too fully when I was speaking. Repairs to the lifts and boilers, and also insurance, are included. I cannot see the unfairness in the present valuation as between flats and dwelling-houses. It seems to me that the flats have properly been valued prior to 1956 on their true rental values. It has always been accepted that the cost of services are excluded and that the cost of the services in the nature of access to the flats, whether by stairs, lifts or access roads, should be excluded. I cannot help protesting not only about the time at which this Clause has been presented to us but against the contents of the Clause itself.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: There is a point of principle here. Anyone who has listened to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) must agree that it is rather a complex subject. I believe that I am right in saying that this new Clause will apply to the valuations coming into force in 1963 and will not affect the position of flats at the moment.
I would have thought that it was not essential for this new Clause to be placed on the Statute Book this month. It would have been practicable to introduce amending legislation next Session. The procedure of introducing a new Clause in this way makes it very difficult for hon. Members to study it carefully before it is approved.
I do not want to do the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, but I ask whether any mention was made, during the earlier stages of the Bill in this House, of the intention to introduce such a new Clause in another place. I do not recollect any such mention, but, if there was, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will correct me.
I should have thought that, as a general principle, where we have a complex sub-

ject such as this, and where an amendment to the law is to be introduced arising out of a decision of the courts, it would be preferable to bring this about by an amending Bill. I join with the hon. Member for Crosby in a somewhat mild protest against this procedure.

Mr. John Barter: The law relating to rating and valuation is not one of those most calculated to inspire entrancing emotions, except on the occasion when the ratepayer comes to pay his bill. This Measure is likely to inspire their emotion some considerable time in the future, but we should not miss the opportunity to refer to it today.
I shall not join with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in dealing with the legal intricacies of the subject. I prefer to concentrate on what I feel may be the effect. The effect indisputably will be that the rates of blocks of flats and offices will be higher than they would have been if this new Clause had not been introduced today. That is not to say that they would have been higher than at the present time, because valuers have been operating under a misconception for a considerable time, and we are proposing to pass now a whitewashing provision to enable them to catch up with something which they have been doing for a considerable time.
This does not alter the fact, however, that in 1963, when there is envisaged as being a fairly substantial revaluation, the effect on large blocks of flats and offices wild be substantially adverse as compared with the effect on small blocks of flats and residential hereditaments of the single house nature.

Mr. Mitchison: If the valuers have been proceeding on a basis which differs from the Land Tribunal's decision, then, assuming the decision to be right, they were working on the wrong basis, but it will be the right basis if we pass this new Clause. There will be no difference in 1963.

Mr. Barter: I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and I am inclined to agree with him. I was coming to refer to the position which will obtain in 1963, when revaluation takes place, the effect of that revaluation on the common parts of a block of flats, and


the additional load which will be placed on people who live in flats.
I appreciate that the constant effort of anybody dealing with rating and valuation is to try to achieve a state of equity between the occupier of one hereditament and the occupier of another. I can see, as my right hon. Friend has said, that the desire must be to try to equate the rate demand as between somebody living in a house and somebody living in a flat, when both have exactly the same type of amenities, facilities, and accommodation.
I have very little reason for disagreeing with him about that, except in one respect to which I hope he will give consideration. We may be discussing this issue tomorrow. It is generally in our interests to encourage the development of flats to a certain extent in order to make the best use of scarce available land. While a policy decision of that type may not be an adequate reason for variation in rating law, at least it might be said that in a house it is not always necessary to provide access to the main part of the house, the stairs are part of the house, enabling one to go from downstairs to upstairs, and it is not necessary to provide access to the front door, which is itself rateable, and it is not necessary in the average house in single occupation to provide a lift. But if one has a five-storey block of flats, the provision of a lift becomes, or is regarded as, a necessity. If the most economic use of a limited supply of land is to be made, this is a matter which my right hon. Friend might well consider.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, I accept the Minister's observations, but my main complaint is about the method of introducing the new Clause. To say the least, it was unreasonable to introduce it at this late stage, after we had proceeded at length through the Committee and Report stages, and, when, on many occasions, we had heard from my right hon. Friend that in his experience Measures dealing with rating and valuation were introduced with great frequency and that there would be other opportunities to deal with other desirable reforms which might be suggested. The same observation might well have been applied to my right hon. Friend's own proposal on this occasion.
There has undoubtedly been a feeling that the Amendment was introduced at this stage in the hope that not too much notice would be taken of it. However, I can assure my right hon. Friend that much notice has been taken. I have some fears about its effects. While we may have varying views about the degree of reservation which owners of flats have placed on their natural desire to put up their rents in the past, I fear that those who have exercised restraint, and there are many of them, may now feel themselves less under control in view of the Government's action.
They might have felt that argument less powerfully if adequate time had been given for consideration of the change of principle which is now before us. I offer that not as a threat, but as an observation, viewing the prospect with considerable concern. I hope that this matter will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend, along with other observations made this afternoon.

Mr. Brooke: I speak again by leave of the House. Several hon. Members have said that the Government ought to have done better with their timing. I accept that. I have already expressed my apologies, and I take personal responsibility for my own fault in not making certain that the new Clause was drafted in time.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that he agreed with the purpose of the new clause, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) did not agree. I cannot go as far as he did when he said that the Clause had caused consternation among flat dwellers. A large part of my constituency consists of flat dwellers, so much so that I ought almost to declare an interest in the new Clause, as I occupy a house. But up to the present, I have not received a single communication from any of my constituents who dwell in flats. It is rather those who own the blocks of flats who are disappointed—naturally disappointed and I do not criticise them in that respect—about the Government's decision not to allow the Peachey decision to stand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby asked what the valuers had been doing. The valuers have been valuing on what they and the Government believed the law to be from 1956 onwards and what


it will be if the Clause is accepted. It is not the case that the law had already been decided in 1940. What the Bell decision in the Court of Appeal meant was that in London, and only in London under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, certain deductions could be made at what I have described as the second stage. Nobody had ever decided that that was the law outside London, and what the Government believed they were doing in the 1956 legislation was to assimilate the law in London to the law in the provinces. But the Lands Tribunal has now decided otherwise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby asked whether the valuers had been very wrong in their valuations, in that they were required to value according to 1939 values, and he submitted, to take the law as it stood in 1939. That is not the case. They must clearly value for the purposes of the 1956 valuation lists according to the 1955 law. The Bell decision was given in the Court of Appeal in 1940. In June, 1939, the general belief about the state of the law was the opposite to the Bell decision, because in 1939 the Divisional Court decided in the opposite way. There was an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the Divisional Court. That is the situation and valuers have been valuing according to what they and the Government believed the law to be.
The meaning of the 1955 Act has now been settled by the Lands Tribunal decision in the Peachey case. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) suggested that if Parliament agreed to the new Clause, the Peachey decision would stand until 1963 and the new Clause would operate from April, 1963, when the valuation lists come into force. That is not the case. The new Clause will operate from the passing of the Bill and the Peachey interpretation of the 1955 Act will cease as from that date.

Mr. Graham Page: Does that mean that the Peachey case law will stand for the valuation lists from 1956 until now, so that, if they have been valued on the basis of this Clause, the owners would have the right to have their valuations amended?

Mr. Brooke: That is perfectly true. The Peachey case is settled law as it is

at present. The law will be changed on the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: Does it follow that anyone has any rights to have the valuation amended, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has suggested? Surely the position is that they are the valuation lists and the effect now is to prevent anybody putting in a proposal to alter them in accordance with the Peachey decision, but the Clause will not give anyone any rights to get any remedy in respect of the past.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the proposal does not go back before the beginning of the year in question.

Mr. Barter: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the fact is that the Peachey decision will operate for the first part of 1961 and that the new law will operate for the last part of the year 1961 and 1962? Would he not, in these circumstances, advise all flat owners, in the interests of their tenants, to put in an appeal for the first part of 1961 now?

Mr. Brooke: Far be it for me to start advising people what they should do, but, as I said, the law will be the law according to Peachey up to the time when the Bill reaches the Statute Book and then the law will be according to this new Clause which we have received from another place.
Though I have seen the suggestion in the Press and elsewhere that this will mean an immediate increase in the assessments of blocks of flats, that is not so, of course. The only ones which will be likely to have an immediate increase are those which have been already reduced as a result of the Peachey decision, but, in general, the blocks of flats will remain entirely unchanged from now till April, 1963. From April, 1963, onwards they will be valued in accordance with the new valuation lists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) expressed the fear that this alteration in the Bill might discourage the building of flats. I really do not believe that those who build flats will have their intentions turned one way or the other by the relatively small alteration in the assessments which will be put


on the flats as a result of what we are doing today.
Finally, my hon. Friend wondered whether it had been my private hope that this Clause might slip through without notice. Certainly not. It is far too important a matter for that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept my word for this, that there was nothing of that sort in my mind at all. This was quite clearly a material change in the law which required the attention of both Houses of Parliament, and I certainly do not criticise at all the fact that this House has wished to devote the best part of an hour to debating it today.

Mr. A. P. Costain: May I ask my right hon. Friend just one question? As he says that this Lords Amendment is brought in to equalise the rate burden between flats and houses, if it is subsequently shown that it is inequitable for the flats will he bring in amending legislation?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot give any firm answer to that, but I am always watching the application of the Rating and Valuation Acts, and I remember that it frequently fell to me, in Standing Committee, to remind the Committee that we do have a Rating and Valuation Act about six times in every eight years.

Mr. Mitchison: I wonder whether I may have the leave of the House to say a word or two more? It will not be more than that. First, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what we are really doing here is to adjust the rate burden as between householders and the people whom I call flatholders. That is what really it comes to. If, therefore, those who live in flats have to pay more rates, then, other things being equal, those who live in houses will have to pay less rates.
Secondly, I think that we ought to be quite clear about the present position. A most ingenious attempt, if I may say so, was made not by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by some of his hon. Friends to suggest that there was a claim in respect of the present lists where valuation officers have not followed the Bell decision because they thought that the 1955 Act had altered the position.
I am not here to criticise the Lands Tribunal decision in the Peachey case, though I think that there is a certain amount of doubt about it, and, of course, that is not a court of record, but, be that as it may, assuming that it was the correct decision, none the less those were the lists in force at the time, those are the lists in force now, and if the law is altered it gives no one any right to claim anything back in respect of the lists which were made before the alteration. All it does, as I see it, is to prevent any one from succeeding in proposals now to alter the law in accordance with the Peachey decision. That will be the effect of passing this Clause.
Let us try to save useless litigation—I am sure that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will agree with me here—by not suggesting to people for a minute that the flat owners or flat occupants are to get anything back because a majority, at any rate, of the valuation officers proceeded on what they and what the Government thought to be the law and conceived that the 1955 Act had made the alteration which, in fact, is now being made by this new Clause.
If I have misstated the position I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me in the public interest. I do not believe that I have, and I think that that was substantially what he was after himself. That is all I wanted to say, but I think that it ought to be said, because it is all very well to have a bit of fun in this House, but we do not want to get people into unnecessary trouble and unnecessary litigation about what is really a tolerably fair point.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 45, at the end, to insert new Clause B.

New Clause B.—(VALUATION OF ADVERTISING STATIONS.)

".—(1) In valuing for rating purposes any right which constitutes a separate hereditament by virtue of section fifty-six of the Act of 1948 (rating of advertising stations), the rent at which the hereditament might be expected to be let shall be estimated on the footing that it would include a proper amount in respect of any structure for the time being available for use, for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements, by the occupier of the separate hereditament, notwithstanding that the structure was


provided by him or was provided after the right was let out or reserved.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the said section fifty-six the separate hereditament shall be treated as coming into existence at the earliest time at which either any structure is erected, after the right constituting the hereditament has been let out or reserved, for enabling the right to be exercised or any advertisement is exhibited in pursuance of the right, and not before: and for the purposes of subsection (2) of section forty-two of the Act of 1948 (cases in which alterations of valuation lists are not to be retrospective to beginning of rating period)—

(a) the hereditament shall be treated as a newly erected or newly constructed hereditament coming into occupation at the said earliest time, and
(b) the erection, dismantling or alteration, after that time, of any structure for enabling the right to be exercised shall, in relation to the hereditament, be treated as the making of structural alterations.

(3) In this section and section fifty-six of the Act of 1948 references to a structure include references to a hoarding, frame, post, wall or sign and accordingly in that section the words' hoarding, frame, post, wall or' shall cease to have effect.

(4) This section shall have effect for the purposes of valuation lists coming into force at any time after the passing of this Act."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Would it be possible, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, also to take the Lords Amendment in page 36, line 11, at end insert:
In section fifty-six, the words 'hoarding, frame, post, wall or'".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): If that would be convenient to the House.

Sir K. Joseph: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
In Section 56 of the Local Government Act, 1948, the right to use land for advertising purposes is deemed to be a separate hereditament distinct from the land on which the right is created, but the separate hereditament for rating purposes was held by the House of Lords recently to be a right let out, not the corporeal structure, which was created by erecting the advertising station in exercise of that right. It is plain from the judgment in the House of Lords that up to 1948 the structure itself was certainly deemed to be rated. The House of Lords decision does mean that from

1948 and at the present moment the structure is not taken into account.
This new Clause in its first subsection provides that a structure shall be taken into account when estimating the rateable value of the separate hereditament, Subsections (2) and (3) do something quite different, but still, of course, connected with advertising stations. They defer the rateability of the right to advertise till the right is actually exercised. At the moment, the right of advertising is rateable as soon as the right is itself created, even before it is exercised. Subsection (4) brings these new provisions into force from 1st April, 1963. The first two subsections are to some extent mutually compensating, that is to say, subsection (1) imposes an additional burden on the advertising industry, by restoring the position prior to 1948, while subsections (2) and (3) are to the advertising industry an advantage, by deferring the rateability till the right to advertise is exercised.
The House will wish to know to what extent the burden will probably afflict the advertising industry. Obviously, it is very difficult for me to judge this because each case will be considered on its merits. But in the case where the House of Lords came to the decision to which I have referred a rateable value of £150 was increased in the case of the Imperial Tobacco Company, which was the advertising concern, by £15. That is an increase of 10 per cent. I cannot possibly tell to what extent that is typical, but it gives a scale by which hon. Members can judge.
I am advised that valuation officers are most unlikely to include in their rateable value anything, for instance, for the light bulbs or the switch gear involved. Therefore, I feel that the figure is not likely to be very large.
Finally, perhaps I should say that since advertising stations are among those hereditaments that are at the moment not only valued on 1955 levels but are not benefiting by any derating, there is likely to be a shift in their favour in the share of the rate burden they bear when in 1963 other groups of ratepayers are moved on to current value over a longer period of years or lose some element of derating.

Mr. Mitchison: The Parliamentary Secretary will be sorry to hear that he


has rather let me down over this. I had this point put to me by one of my hon. Friends while the Bill was still under consideration in this House. I was shown a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary saying that this was a very complicated matter and that the Government were not yet ready to legislate about it. Bearing in mind the advice so frequently given to us by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary himself in the course of the Bill, that they expected to have a new Rating Bill every five years—a dreary prospect, I think—I said to my hon. Friend, "I think we had better let them see what conclusions they have arrived at." But I am bound to say that I did not expect them to wait till the Bill had left the House and then, suddenly, introduce this new Clause in another place. I see the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head very violently. I should hate to see it fall off. Will he tell me why this was done?

Sir K. Joseph: With the permission of the House, I will answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think the facts were that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, put down an amendment of this order but asked to withdraw it so that the Government could amend it slightly. But the initiative was with the noble Lord.

Mr. Mitchison: Had it not been for the Parliamentary Secretary's letter, the initiative would have been with a mere commoner and would have taken effect, as it were, in this House instead of in another place. I am simply telling the hon. Gentleman that what he is now doing is not altogether consistent with what was said at an earlier stage. This is all part of the Opposition's time-honoured privilege of teasing the Government. They must not take it in this case too desperately seriously.
I turn from that to the Clause itself. There are moments when one is tempted to think that there are principles in rating, but it is a temptation which should be stubbornly resisted. If there is any principle in rating, it is surely not to go and rate a right. That was what was done in the 1948 Act. The Government rated the right but not the structure. The Imperial Tobacco Company acquired a right and put up a whale of

a structure. I understand that it said "Players Please" in very bright red letters hung out over Bradford. None of my hon. Friends from Bradford is here, but Bradford is not in all respects the most beautiful city in the country. Apparently, the Imperial Tobacco Company succeeded in making it almost worse.
5.15 p.m.
When someone tried to rate the company for this horror, it successfully said, "All that we can be rated on is the right to put it up and not what we do when we put it up." Now the Government are going to make the punishment fit the crime, as the old song goes. If anyone puts up a very large and conspicuous advertisement he may have to pay a small amount of rates as a sort of local government penalty for doing so. That is all to the good.
It is easy to look back at these things and to say that this Section of the 1948 Act was wrong in rating principle, if, I repeat, there is such a thing as rating principle, but this, I believe, is how the trouble has arisen. As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, I think we all feel that this is a correction of what was, using hindsight, rather a mistake in drafting or in the form of the Section and which resulted in the decision which is now intended not, I would say, to correct but to supersede.

Mr. Graham Page: I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that what he claims as a privilege for the Opposition in teasing the Government is not an exclusive privilege. Here we have, once again, a case of a very important Clause being brought to us at a very late stage in the Bill, and, again, I register a mild protest about this. I register a rather stronger protest that this is yet another case in which the Legislature steps in as a court of appeal.
In the last new Clause which we were discussing we were upsetting a case in the courts. We are doing exactly the same again with this Clause. I am afraid that litigants will feel that if they have the valuation officer as the defendant it will be no good carrying on with the litigation at all because the Government will step in at the right moment, even between the court of first


instance and the court of appeal, and settle the matter in favour of the valuation officer. That is what has been done in this case.

Mr. Mitchison: We are only following the precedent of Income Tax decisions.

Mr. Page: Indeed that is so, and that is why I am complaining about it. We are introducing into rating legislation a principle recognised in Income Tax legislation.
The practice of rating the rental value of the site without taking into account the structures provided by the tenant of the site has been a recognised form of valuation for many years now. It has been the practice adopted in the case of advertising sites, except that from 1956 the valuation officers have made an effort to change this, and the House of Lords, in the case to which my right hon. Friend referred, confirmed the form of practice and, in fact, said that the valuation officers were wrong. So my right hon. Friend comes to the House at this late stage to put the valuation officers right. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary led us to believe that no very great amount was involved in this. May I inform him and the House that already, without rating the structures on these sites, rates fall on average to around 20 per cent. of the earnings from the sites?
I am taking a very average figure. That is not, of course, comparable in any way with the rates payable by a shopkeeper compared with his turnover, which are something between 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. These structures on advertising sites are in no way comparable with, say, shop fronts. Everyone knows that improvements made to shop fronts, even by a tenant, may attract a greater amount of rates, but the structures on an advertising site are something more like the tools of trade of the poster site contractors rather than the structure on the land.
I notice that the new Clause goes a lot further than talking about structures. It includes for the first time the word "sign". It does not define what is meant by "sign", but I imagine that that could include something far more than permanent structures. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave as one example of an increase the case

which was decided in the House of Lords. He said that if this Clause had then applied the increase would have been £15 on a £150 assessment. I have other figures and I was quoted one quite normal case in which the assessment is increased from £60 without the structure to £130 with the structure under the new Clause. I assure my hon. Friend that that was quite a simple structure.
All these structures are quite simple and it was recognised in the 1948 Act that the right thing to do was to exclude them from rateable value and to treat them merely as temporary structures, as a frame for the advertisements and not part of the land to be rated. It should be put on record that the new Clause will place a considerable burden on poster-site contractors and is likely to be a discouragement to the improvement of advertising sites.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not like to lose any opportunity on these occasions of disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I should like to do so now at the outset, because I do not think it is quite fair to describe this kind of amendment in the law as flouting a decision of the courts. The phrase is frequently used, but what we are doing is to make an amendment of the law based upon a decision of the courts already arrived at. We do not reverse or prejudice the position of the parties in the litigation itself. Any practitioner in the law, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is one, will know that at the end the question is who will pay the costs. Nothing that we do now will affect the successful litigant's costs and, therefore, he is not really prejudiced.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the owner of the hereditaments here would not have enjoyed any amount of derating and would be assessed on more or less current rental values. If that is the case it is rather harsh. It is not presumably an industrial hereditament and does not enjoy 50 per cent. industrial derating. It is not a dwellinghouse and does not enjoy the advantage of being on pre-war rental values. It is not a commercial hereditament and does not enjoy the percentage of mitigation which we gave by a separate Act. In other words, these wretched owners of advertising sites


seem to be in the unique position in rating law as the only people who pay an entirely undiminished rate on rental values.

Sir K. Joseph: No, this is the law as it is at the moment. The Bill does not alter it in any way. I was only comforting the advertising industry by saying that since this is so and other ratepayers will suffer a larger movement in 1963, these people's share of the rate burden in 1963 will tend to diminish.

Mr. Bell: I understand that, but it is rather left-handed comfort to these gentlemen, because what it comes to is that they pay an unfair share of the rates at the moment and will go on paying it until 1963 when at last they start to pay a fair share. My hon. Friend is saying in effect, "It is a beastly shame. It is most unfair, but it will stop being unfair in 1963."
On these occasions I also like to agree sometimes with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, and I agree with him now that there is great disadvantage in pushing these things through at the last stage of the Bill when we have to agree to Lords Amendments or disagree and have all the tiresome procedural consequences which follow on disagreement. I would wish that it were possible to draft Amendments at this stage to put these people in the position which in equity they should be in.
Lastly, this whole business of rating advertising sites is the final reductio ad absurdum of rating. To treat an advertising site as a hereditament and levy local rates on it is to illustrate in the most striking manner possible the basic absurdity, unreality and fallacy of our whole system of raising local rates.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary a question, which I agree he has already partly answered. He has held out the prospect to the outdoor advertising industry of some jam tomorrow in the form of a probable reduction in its share of the rating liability when the new values come into force. The other half of the question, which I should like him to confirm so that the matter may be quite clear, is whether subsection (4) means that the new Clause involving rating the struc-

ture as well as rating the right does not come into force until the new values come into effect in 1963.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph indicated assent—

Mr. Bishop: I am glad to have that confirmation, because it means that the jam and the powder will come together and the powder will not have to be swallowed first.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member should not be too sure.

Mr. Bishop: This is important, because I agree that this industry has been always rather harshly treated in legislation, and not only in the matter of rating. It is not in the public interest that it should be too severely treated in this matter particularly because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has rightly said, if we put a severe burden by way of additional rates on the structure which an advertiser puts up it is a discouragement to putting up good and expensive structures and almost an incentive to putting up the sort of flimsy thing that it is in the public interest to discourage. I hope, therefore, that in the interests of the public as well as of the industry the powder which the industry will have to swallow in 1963 will be suitably and adequately covered by the jam which it can expect.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Has my hon. Friend observed the words relating to the valuation lists? As I understand, each year there is a new valuation list and, therefore, I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right about 1963.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) is right in his assumption that subsection (4) will defer the effectiveness of the new Clause, in both its advantages and disadvantages, until 1963.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 13.—(RATING OF OWNERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 3, leave out "not exceed" and insert "be".

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest that we take also the Lords Amendment in line 43, leave out from "person" to "and" in line 44 and insert "who in pursuance of section eleven of the Act of 1925 is rated or has undertaken to pay or collect the rates in respect of the hereditament)".

These are purely drafting Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison: But are they? I wonder why. I thought that this was a change affecting the 10 per cent. that is allowed for the collection of rates. In Committee it was provided that it should not exceed 10 per cent. Now the 10 per cent. will be fixed. This removes a discretion which previously rested with the local authorities, and until the right hon. Gentleman assured us that these were purely drafting Amendments I had intended to ask whether the local authority associations had been consulted. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to me how I am wrong or what "drafting" is?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This was certainly not a drafting Amendment. It arose from an Amendment put forward in Committee from this side of the House. It is an Amendment to which we gave very great thought, and we considered it was of considerable importance. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for seeing that it comes into the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had overlooked, as perhaps I had overlooked, that subsection (1, a) of Section 11 of the 1925 Act fixes the allowance at 10 per cent. The words "not exceed" might, therefore, be somewhat misleading, and if there is an allowance at all it must be under the 1925 Act 10 per cent. It seemed, therefore, better to make it clear on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: With the leave of the House, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman and tell him that all the same I think it goes a bit further than drafting?

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(ASCERTAINMENT OF AVERAGE WATER SUPPLIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 19, leave out from "undertakers" to "show" in line 22 and insert:
supply non-potable water otherwise than in bulk, they shall, in certifying under subsection (3) of this section the amount of water supplied by them".

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I think that it would be convenient to take this Amendment with the next two Amendments in line 23 and lines 41 and 42, and the Amendments in page 28, lines 10 and 41. They are all part of the same theme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House wishes.

Sir K. Joseph: The House will be glad to know that we are plunging into the intricacies of the rating of water undertakings. This Amendment was first moved in its original form by the noble Lord Lord Latham in another place, and my right hon. Friend has since had discussion on both with the British Waterworks Association.
The Amendment deals with non-potable water and the rating of non-potable water. The Amendment preserves the principle that non-potable water is to be treated for the purpose of water formula as equivalent to half the volume of potable water. This is because the supply of non-potable water generally involves much less in the way of capital works and is charged for at a lower cost. The Amendment removes the distinction between bulk supplies of potable water on the one hand and bulk supplies of non-potable water on the other. The undertaking which gives a bulk supply of non-potable water to another will count that supply at half its volume whether the water is potable or non-potable.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will be delighted with this because he asked me in Committee what was the definition of potability. I assured him that there was no difficulty about this whatsoever. In fact, we are now worried a little lest the


Bill enables a supplier of water to reduce the rateable value of that supply by claiming that it is non-potable, even if in fact it is only non-potable by a mere technicality and a mere trifle has to be done to the water to make it potable. We felt that the way was open for one undertaking to put part of the rate burden on another by claiming for purely technical reasons that its water was non-potable. That is why this Amendment is put forward. There are consequential Amendments to that part of the Schedule which deals with rating arrangements for water undertakings which are new.

Mr. Mitchison: "Non-potable" is a beastly word. The Government in another place described this set of Amendments as non-potable undrinkable Amendments, and I must say that, although I do not often agree with the Government, I do not think that they were far off the mark about that. Why is it necessary to use this word "potable." and what does it mean? Does it mean that you cannot drink the water; does it mean that you will invariably die if you do; or does not it simply mean that you drink it at your own risk?
The only place in which I have seen non-potable water labelled as such was inside a lavatory of a railway carriage, and I was informed by someone well-qualified in such matters that it was perfectly potable and drinkable and would do no harm if one drank it. I did so. Why the Government or the draftsmen or the Minister uses "non-potable" as a phrase passes my understanding. If they mean undrinkable, why do not they say so? "Undrinkable" is at least English. Non-potable must have been evolved by some dreadful magician in words.
On the merits of the matter, I have looked into this Amendment and what was said in another place, and I would not venture to differ from Lord Latham on this question. I agree in principle with what has been done, and I see no objection to the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special Entries.]

Clause 27.—(SHORT TITLE, REPEALS, SAVINGS AND EXTENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 15, after "Schedule" insert:
as from the passing of this Act,
(c) in the case of the enactments specified in Part III of that Schedule

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is linked with the new Clause A, which the House has already discussed.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(CHARITIES EXCLUDED FROM MANDATORY RELIEF.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 8, at end insert:
with the exception of the following colleges of the University of Durham, that is to say, the College of the Venerable Bede, St. Chad's College and St. John's College

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In another place is was brought to the notice of the Government that there were these three colleges of the University of Durham which were really in the same position as the colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, in that they are entirely independent of the receipt of grant from the University Grants Committee. The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that they are treated like the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges.

Mr. Mitchison: We considered the position of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges in Committee, and if there were any dispute about the matter we should certainly not raise it on the similar treatment of the three colleges in the University of Durham, which appear to be in a similar position.
This, I think, is the sixth or seventh Amendment—I have not kept accurate count—which raises the question of privilege, and I hope that the Government in future will not put quite so much into Lords Amendments. They might have woken up to the position of the University of Durham a little sooner.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO VALUATION OF STATUTORY WATER UNDERTAKINGS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 19, leave out from end to "in" in line 41 and insert:
the following provisions shall have effect for the period between the change and the coming into force of the first valuation lists to come into force after the change:—

(a) for the year in which the change takes place the rateable values of hereditaments which on the change become water hereditaments of a new undertaking shall be the same as they were before the change, the rateable value of any water hereditament of a new undertaking which is part of a hereditament which before the change was a water hereditament of another undertaking being ascertained by the Commissioners by apportionment;
(b) for any subsequent year the rateable values of water hereditaments of a new undertaking shall be such as the Commissioners may determine to be appropriate having regard to the cumulo-values for the undertakings wholly or partly comprised in the new undertaking;
(c) without prejudice to the generality of head (a) of this sub-paragraph, no alteration shall be made under section seventeen of this Act as respects water hereditaments of a new undertaking so as to affect the rateable values of such hereditaments for the year in which the change took place;
(d) in the application of the said section seventeen (for any subsequent year) as respects any period of years ending after the change—

(i) the undertakers carrying on a new undertaking shall be treated as having had in periods beginning before the change a yearly average supply ascertained by reference to the yearly average supplies of the undertakers carrying on the undertakings wholly or partly comprised in the new undertaking, and
(ii) the cumulo-value of a new undertaking shall be taken to be an amount ascertained by the Commissioners as that which appears to them appropriate having regard to the said cumulo-values: and"

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take with this Amendment that in line 50, to leave out "(c)" and to insert "(b)", and that in page 26, line 1, to leave out "under head (d) thereof" and to insert
of the cumulo-value of a new undertaking for the purposes of the first valuation lists coming into force after the time of the change.
Part III of the Second Schedule provides for the rating of new water under-

takings where changes occur by acquisition, merger or division. There were two defects in the arrangements in the Bill. First, no provision was made for splitting the rateable value of a water hereditament split between undertakings. This Amendment provides that the Commissioners will have power to make that split. The second defect was that there was no provision for fixing the cumulo-value as a base to make comparisons with Clause 17 adjustments, and it is now sought to provide the Commissioners with that power.

Mr. Mitchison: On the merits of the matter, I appreciate what it is desired to do, and this seems a right and sensible way of tackling the problem. I said during the Third Reading debate how much I admired the drafting of this very difficult part of the Bill, but I am really surprised that only such a small alteration as this should be required at this stage. This is not a case of "non-potable"; this is much better.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special Entries.]

Orders of the Day — Fourth Schedule.—{MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS)

Lord Amendment: In page 32, line 34, leave out "proposals'" and insert "a proposal".

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, that in line 39, to leave out from beginning to "earlier" and to insert:
first-mentioned appeal before all",
and in line 52, at the end to insert:
(4) Section sixty-six of the Act of 1948 (which places the owner of certain hereditaments in the same position as the occupier for the purposes of Part III of that Act) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that Part of that Act.
are all purely drafting Amendments, aimed at greater clarity.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 21, at end insert:
13.—(1) So much of subsection (2) of section three of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953. as provides that a hereditament in which the whole, or substantially the whole, of the available accommodation is used for the letting of rooms singly for residential purposes shall for the purposes of that Act be deemed not to be used for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings shall not apply in relation to a hereditament in which the whole, or substantially the whole, of that accommodation consists of dwellings—

(a) which have at any time been approved under section one of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958 (dwellings qualifying for exchequer subsidies) or the corresponding provision of any Act of the present Session relating to the giving of financial assistance for the provision of housing accommodation;
(b) which have been provided or improved in accordance with proposals approved under section nine of the said Act of 1958 (contributions for dwellings improved by local authorities); or
(c) in respect of which grants have at any time been paid to a housing association or development corporation under section twelve of the said Act of 1958 (grants for dwellings improved by housing associations or development corporations under arrangements with local authorities) or section thirty of that Act (grants for dwellings improved by persons other than local authorities).

(2) Any reference in the foregoing subparagraph to any provision of the said Act of 1958 includes a reference to the corresponding provision of any enactment repealed by that Act.

(3) An alteration in a valuation list made in pursuance of a proposal made for the purpose of giving effect to sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, being an alteration which would by virtue of subsection (1) of section forty-two of the Act of 1948 (alterations retrospective to beginning of current rate period) be deemed to have had effect as from a date before the passing of this Act, shall be deemed to have had effect as from the passing of this Act."

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a matter of some importance, which I should like to explain to the House, although I do not think that there is likely to be any difference of opinion about it on the other side. Hon. Members may know that there are a certain number of blocks of flatlets provided by local authorities or housing associations for old people, and the system in those blocks is that each of the old ladies or old gentlemen has a room, usually a bed-

sitting room. There are shared bathrooms and, normally a communal sitting room. There is usually a warden, who has a flat on the premises and who is available to deal with any emergencies that may arise.

A difficulty has been discovered in relation to the rating of these blocks. I do not think that there can be any doubt that, at the time of the passing of the 1953 Act, Parliament did not intend to create a situation where such blocks of flatlets would be rated otherwise than as domestic premises, but the question has arisen whether such a block of flatlets can truthfully be described as being used solely for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings.

The experience that has come to light in different parts of the country is that in some cases these blocks of flatlets are rated as private dwellings but, in other cases, the valuation officers have determined that they do not come within that definition, and should be rated as though they were commercially-owned flatlets. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that they are not commercially-owned flatlets NOT, I think, would anyone in his senses seek to urge that these flatlets, occupied by old people, should be rated as anything but private dwellings.

I feel sure that nobody would desire that they should not have the benefit which private dwellings now have of being rated on their 1939 values rather than on their 1956 values. Nobody would desire that in 1963, when the new valuation lists come into force, these blocks should not receive the benefit of any percentage derating by Order which will apply to private houses and so forth.

There is no doubt, however, that the law at the moment—I will not say that it is ambiguous, but it is certainly capable of different interpretations, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make it perfectly clear that blocks of flatlets of that kind will be treated on the ordinary residential basis, and will have the rating advantage that residential property has.

There is rather lengthy definition in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in this Amendment, but that long definition is solely designed to achieve the result I have described, and I trust that the hon.


and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will not think that the Government have done wrong in securing this change in the law, even at a late stage in the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: On the contrary, I think that this is one of the good intentions with which the right hon. Gentleman's passage through another place will be paved.

Mr. Graham Page: This is, of course, the third case we have had today of legislation upsetting litigation. I thought that my right hon. Friend might have given us some idea of the difference in figures between the 1939 value and the 20 per cent. decrease on commercial value. I am not sure whether these premises will come out better or worse as a result of this Amendment. Is it better for the property to be valued on the 1939 valuation as a dwelling-house, or is it better that it should be regarded as commercial property, and get the 20 per cent. reduced value?

Mr. Brooke: If I may speak again, I can say that some of the local authorities which own these blocks of flatlets and find that they are being rated on 1956 values less 20 per cent. have laid complaints about it. I do not think that anyone lays a complaint against paying too low rates, so I think that the presumption is that the 1939 values would be advantageous for rating purposes.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that my right hon. Friend is wrong in one respect. The other day I appeared professionally for a man who was appealing against his rating assessment on the ground that it was too low. However, I agree with him that that is a rather rare occurrence.

Mr. Michael Foot: Did the hon. Gentleman win?

Mr. Bell: No, I lost.
I should like to take the opportunity of emphasising that dwelling-houses enjoy about 65 per cent. derating, which compares very handsomely with the 20 per cent. derating which is allowed to commercial premises and the 50 per cent. derating which is allowed to industrial premises. I am, therefore, not surprised that local authorities are seeking this adjustment.
This Clause compares rather strikingly with the new Clause with which we were dealing a few minutes ago concerning advertising sites, where an inequity of precisely this character, namely, that they were in the unique position of not having any mitigation of their rating, was to be allowed to continue until 1963, with the comfort that they could think themselves very fortunate because the inequity would cease in 1963.
I am disposed to ask why my right hon. Friend does not offer local authorities the same joyous prospect that the inequity from which they suffer would cease in 1963. Therefore, they could consider themselves very lucky because, after knocking their head against a stone wall for several years, they would have the pleasant experience of stopping doing so in 1963. It appears to me that he is robbing them of that sensation by this Amendment, and to that extent they will not be grateful to him.

Mr. Ede: The Minister said that these flatlets are the property of local authorities. However, not all such flatlets are vested in local authorities. I am a trustee of a foundation under which the trustees have to run a block of flatlets in the interests of certain beneficiaries. Will they also get the benefits of this Clause, or will their present position exclude them from the need of it?

Mr. Brooke: If I may have leave to speak again, this Amendment applies to the housing associations. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will almost certainly find that the trustees he has in mind have established a housing association for the management of the property.

Mr. Ede: It is a very ancient foundation. It was founded by an archbishop many, many years ago. I am not sure that archbishops after the sixteenth century were well advised about the rating law of the twentieth century.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — Fifth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 11, at end insert:
In section fifty-six, the words 'hoarding, frame, post, wall or'".

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment and the remaining Amendments are of a drafting, or cleaning-up, character.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.]

VISITING FORCES (APPLICATION OF LAW)

5.54 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I beg to move,
That the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
Perhaps I should first say a word about the actual amendment of the Visiting Forces Act. It is merely to add to the word "Italy" the words "and the Federal Republic of Germany". The general purpose of the Act is to enable forces visiting this country to be under proper military discipline during their on-duty hours and under the control of their own officers, and off-duty to see that they are properly subject to the normal processes of British law. The visiting German forces will be on exactly the same footing as any other forces—American, Canadian or any other N.A.T.O. forces—which use facilities of one kind or another in these islands.
I do not think it is always known how much use has been made in the last few years of our facilities following from the increasing integration of the N.A.T.O. alliance. For example, in the last three years nearly 5,000 officers and men from N.A.T.O. countries have been on training courses and exercises in Britain. Of those 5,000, 1,200 were Germans.
I thought that the House would like to know a little of the history of the present proposals which have resulted in the offer of the Castlemartin range and certain other facilities to the German authorities through N.A.T.O. In March, 1960, the Federal German Republic formally asked N.A.T.O. for assistance in providing training and support facilities for German forces. It submitted a

paper, which was debated in the Council. It also put forward detailed proposals for support and logistic problems. The Council decided, on the question of having an integrated support and logistic organisation—which, incidentally, would make it quite impossible for any member of N.A.T.O. to take independent action because the German proposal is for a complete integration of the N.A.T.O. supply chain of logistics and supply—to refer that for further study. The Council further decided that it recognised the problem facing the Federal Republic in providing training and logistic facilities and asked any other member of the alliance if, providing the request was sponsored by N.A.T.O., it could be sympathetically considered by all N.A.T.O. countries.
The House of Commons was generally informed of this position at Question Time on 6th April, 1960, in cols. 362–3 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date. Subsequently, in the course of meeting the German request through N.A.T.O., a number of countries brought forward types of facilities and assistance, and the United Kingdom did the same. As a result, a meeting of experts from both sides—that is,from the German side and from the British side—was held in Paris under N.A.T.O. auspices in February, 1961, to examine the position in more detail. It was accepted at this meeting, with the agreement of the N.A.T.O. permanent staff, that the German army had urgent need of additional facilities for tank-firing training for their newly formed tank units, and other studies carried out by the N.A.T.O. military authorities established that there was no spare capacity on which this firing could be done either on the N.A.T.O. run ranges or on other ranges in Central Europe belonging to other N.A.T.O. countries.
It was therefore appropriate and, I think, sensible that it should be considered whether this training would be best carried out in the United Kingdom if suitable facilities were available. I will say a word or two about the other facilities. It was recognised that the military situation required a greater dispersal of stockpiles, that reserve stocks for the German armed forces should be dispersed more in depth and that maintenance facilities for the repair and overhaul of ships, for example, should similarly be dispersed.
Here, then, were two problems. Firstly that N.A.T.O. had clearly agreed that there was a shortage of tank-training facilities and that the available facilities on the Continent of Europe were fully booked and, indeed, overbooked. Secondly, N.A.T.O. agreed that it was wise to try to disperse support facilities more in depth, bearing in mind that a jet aircraft can overfly the whole of European N.A.T.O. in a very short time.
Following that, teams of German experts visited the storage and training facilities in the United Kingdom which had been provisionally put forward in the course of the N.A.T.O. exercise and they confirmed that these would be satisfactory for their purpose.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Shame.

Mr. Watkinson: The Government's decision that facilities could be made available was, as the House knows, announced by me on 12th July. In the meantime, other N.A.T.O. nations had been taking the same action. A very good example is France. France might well be held to have definite views about German soldiers on her territory. I have made my own inquiries. France made similar offers of training facilities. These were taken up by the German forces and I understand that the training has proceeded in satisfactory fashion without incident.
That is the broad history of how this N.A.T.O. proposition came to us, how we felt that we should respond to it as part of our duty to N.A.T.O. and how, therefore, this arose. I should like now to answer two specific questions which clearly arise. The first is what should be our attitude to the Federal German Government as a military Power and as a member of N.A.T.O. That is clearly posed by many people who have discussed this problem.
It is hardly necessary for me to restate the Government's position. We fully recognise in all ways the German Federal Republic as a N.A.T.O. ally. We wish to see her closely integrated and tied into the Western Alliance. In all my contacts with the Federal authorities and with the Federal Defence Minister, it has been made plain to me that the policy of the Federal Republic is to seek

this close integration and interdependence with its other N.A.T.O. allies. It is worth remembering, for example, that it was the Federal Defence Minister who put forward a plan to N.A.T.O. for an integration of logistic and supply facilities that would clearly make it impossible for any member of the alliance to take independent action, even if it wished to do so.
Therefore, most people who have thought about this and pondered over it, as I and, I imagine, all hon. Members have done, are forced to the conclusion that it would be a very bad thing for N.A.T.O., for our own security and for peace in the European area if we took any steps that appeared to rebuff the present sincere desire of the Federal authorities to link and tie themselves into N.A.T.O. as closely as possible.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Government of the Federal German Republic be able to veto a possible plan of attack on the U.S.S.R. by the U.S.A. if the Pentagon decided upon such a course?

Mr. Watkinson: I am sure that the hon. Member has studied and knows how N.A.T.O. works. He knows that the power of decision in the alliance lies in the N.A.T.O. Political Council. It is by decision of that Council that N.A.T.O. action is either started or stopped. That is a decision of fifteen nations.
As for the Russian view that action by one N.A.T.O. ally assisting another with its training or logistic facilities encourages German militarism, the very reverse is the truth. The Russians should welcome any step that binds their old enemy more closely into an alliance that has no aggressive intent and is subject to the democratic control of fifteen Governments. This is an important point for anybody who might fear independent action by the Germans.
In the interests of the strength and cohesion of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, the Government are certain that we have no other choice than to act as we have done. We believe that to do otherwise would be to fail in our duty to the Alliance and, I believe, in our duty to the cause of European peace and security.
The second question that arises is why, if it is accepted that one has a duty, as I believe it to be, to act in this way


to strengthen and support the alliance as a whole, it is necessary to use Castle-martin. That is a fair question to pose, and I will try to answer it. The buildup of the German army as part of N.A.T.O. has created a serious shortage of land training facilities for both infantry and armoured units. The existing areas in Germany are already sufficient only to provide for the training and the facilities of the non-German N.A.T.O. forces stationed in Central Europe. As I have said, it was not unreasonable that in 1960 the German authorities should point out that they needed help elsewhere in meeting their need for training facilities.
It is equally sensible that the N.A.T.O. authorities concluded that as there was this serious shortage of all types of land training area within Germany, the other allies should seek any way in which they could help outside the area. Therefore, the first point on this second question is that the offer of Castlemartin to the German authorities for tank training falls into place as one of a series of measures sponsored by the N.A.T.O. authorities, agreed by our other N.A.T.O. allies, including France, to share out the available facilities as effectively as we can.
It has been agreed that one tank battalion—about thirty to forty tanks and 500 to 600 men—will train for three weeks in September. The primary requirement is for elementary tank firing from static positions and a little firing on the move. The reason for this is that the units that come here are at the initial and elementary stages in their training. The size of the range, as I expect some hon. Members know, is about 5,000 acres and no extension of the range or use of property outside the range will be necessary. On the practical results of the trial, both parties will have to decide whether it is a worthwhile operation.
Again, I will give some examples, because I want the House to be as clear about this as possible. We should have to see that it did not interfere with the requirements of the Regular and Territorial Army which also use the range. We should have to see that too much damage was not done to the land surface of the range to make it unsuitable for the continuous use which it has. We should obviously want as far as possible

to avoid interfering with the occasional use of the range for grazing facilities. This would mean that, on the whole, the German authorities would have to be prepared to use the range during the winter when, at present, it is not used for our purposes.
As to how it will be done, there are some administrative problems, the details of which have yet to be settled. In general, however, the tanks will be brought to Milford Haven by ship or tank-landing craft. They will then be moved over about 10 miles of road to the range. There they will stay and they will not leave the range in any way. The men will come either by sea in the same way or will be flown to a convenient Royal Air Force or civil airfield and moved to the range by train or lorry transport.

Mr. George Brown: I may have missed what the right hon. Gentleman said. but did I understand him to say that while the Germans are there, there will be no use of the range by us, or shall we continue to use it at the same time?

Mr. Watkinson: I said that while the Germans are there, we shall make no use of it, but that they will not stop our own use of it. This gives them only a limited time of use, primarily during the winter months. They may find that during, that time, the weather is not satisfactory. That is what I meant when speaking about the practical test. The practical test is to have a battalion there to see how it goes on.
I should try to make it plain why German units should use Castlemartin and why we are not withdrawing British units from B.A.O.R. or anywhere else to use the range. As I have explained, the range is used by British units, both Regular and Territorial, for certain parts of the year. Why it is not sensible or practical in the interests of the Alliance to bring back the British armoured regiments in B.A.O.R. is, first, because they are at an advanced stage of training and need to carry out, therefore, mobile battle training over a fairly large area.
I want to make it plain to the House that we have the use of the Hohne range, which is over 72,000 acres, whereas the Castlemartin range is only 5,000 acres in extent, and we have the


use of other ranges, too. I hope that that makes one point clear. What we need is the rather sophisticated battle and firing training over a very large area which we frankly cannot get in this country, and our own armoured formations are part of the front line strength of B.A.O.R. and should certainly be kept in Germany. The main reason is the entirely different stage of training of the two elements. The German battalion is just starting and it wants elementary practice firing at static targets. We are fully trained and merely need the sophisticated battle training which has to be used to get a regiment up to its full fighting capability.
It is quite natural that the Germans themselves do not care very much for British tanks roaming over their countryside, inevitably doing a certain amount of damage, which cannot be helped, and, therefore, in my view, it is not unreasonable, if we insist, as we have to insist, that our requirements be met in Germany, that we should be able to offer them some facilities in our own country if they can make practical use of them.
I do not want to be too long, and I shall be available during the debate to answer any further points, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is here to look after the Home Office interest in this matter. I have tried to set out clearly what are the facts. The facts are that Germany made the request that any N.A.T.O. ally might make. Unless we are to assume that there is some differentiation in the alliance as regards Germany, which I think would be the end of the alliance, then—

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does that mean giving them the H-bomb?

Mr. Watkinson: That has nothing to, do with the argument, as the hon. Member knows.
The alliance had no choice but to seek to try to meet the German request. We put forward certain facilities through N.A.T.O., discussions were held by N.A.T.O., and it was decided that this range might play a useful and practical part in the general training effort of the alliance. We therefore said that the sensible thing seemed to be to let a

German battalion come here and do its training, and to see whether it makes the contribution which we think it will.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the Minister at this stage give an assurance that under this Order there is no question of German soldiers being given any training in nuclear weapons?

Mr. Watkinson: I can certainly say that none of the facilities which this House is now discussing has anything to do with nuclear weapons at all. The tank forces are ordinary conventional tanks and the soldiers are at a very elementary stage in their training.

Mr. Greenwood: This Order does not apply to any specific period. It will go on and on until it is revoked. Will the Minister give an assurance that if there is any question of German forces being trained in the use of nuclear weapons in this country, he will come to the House and seek permission?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that that is a perfectly proper request. Certainly, if there is to be any training in nuclear weapons in this sort of area, the matter should come before the House again. I think that the hon. Member knows that we offered the Hebrides rocket range to the Germans. They did not take up the offer. The Americans took it up and recently had a formation there. They fire weapons there which can carry a nuclear head, but, obviously, they do not do so during practice firing. I am sure that the hon. Member knows it, and also knows that the offer remains open if the Germans wish at some future time to accept it, although for the moment they have said that they are not anxious to do so.
I do not say that this is an easy problem for any of us. It is bound to touch our consciences and our memories. I note that those who oppose these proposals have been at pains to make it plain—and I think rightly—that their opposition applies only to German soldiers and not to German civilians. I understand that that was the sense of the miners and everyone else. In this attitude, I think they have displayed the dilemma which faces all of us, because the German soldier today is the same kind of soldier as the ordinary British soldier. He is primarily a civilian who is serving his country for the moment in the armed forces. He is not a Nazi. He


does not regard himself as belonging to a race apart, as the Nazi forces did. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will think about this as carefully as I have done. It is very much in the interests of all of us that this situation should remain, and that the German forces should regard themselves as serving the democratic German Federal Republic, many of them being conscripts. Therefore, in my view, the differentiation between soldier and civilian is not only somewhat unreal in these circumstances but, I believe, could be harmful. These young men were children at the time of the last war.
I end by saying that this is a difficult problem. I believe that the Government's decision is not only right but the only one which we can take if we believe that N.A.T.O. is something which may prevent a third world war. All of us, in one way or another, fought in the last war against a cruel and wicked dictatorship of the Nazis. I think that we should do so again against any other dictatorship which we felt threatened our life and our liberty. But is not this itself a powerful reason why we should seek by all means in our power to continue to treat the German Federal Republic in all ways as a close ally, standing with us for our free way of life, and so help to confirm her in the way in which her democratic Government have sought to lead her since the end of the last war? I think that this is something that hon. Members must ponder and choose.
We have the chance of keeping Federal Germany within the comity of the free democratic nations of the West. We have a German Government who wish to bind themselves irrevocably closer and closer into our way of life and our alliance. We should rebuff this sensible and generous impulse at our peril. I therefore hope that the House will, no doubt quite properly, ponder the difficulty of the problem of this decision and will come to the conclusion that in the end it is right for our way of life, for peace and for the strength of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, which I sincerely believe, with the majority of this House, is perhaps the one thing which may stand between us and a third world war.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I intend to confine my remarks to a few practical points which arise from the approval of

this Order. I should disclose to the House that I served on this range as an assistant adjutant a few years ago, and I had a little to do both with the range itself—

ROYAL ASSENT

6.19 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1961.
2. Small Estates (Representation) Act, 1961.
3. Court of Chancery of Lancaster (Amendment) Act, 1961.
4. Criminal Justice Act, 1961.
5. Consumer Protection Act, 1961.
6. Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act. 1961.
7. Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act, 1961.
8. Public Authorities (Allowances) Act, 1961.
9. Barristers (Qualification for Office) Act, 1961.
10. British Transport Commission Order Confirmation Act, 1961.
11. Montrose Burgh and Harbour (Amendment) Order Confirmation Act, 1961.
12. Argyll County Council (Arinagour and Craignure Piers, etc.) Order Confirmation Act, 1961.
13. National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act, 1961.
14. Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1961.
15. Birmingham Corporation Act, 1961.
16. Saint Benet Sherehog Churchyard Act, 1961.
17. Saint Pancras, Pancras Lane, Churchyard Act, 1961.
18. Dartford Tunnel Act, 1961.
19. Sutton Coldfield Corporation Act, 1961.
20. London County Council (Money) Act, 1961.
21. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1961.
22. Manchester Corporation Act, 1961.
23. Stationers' and Newspaper Makers' Company Act, 1961.
24. River Wear Watch (Dissolution) Act, 1961.

VISITING FORCES (APPLICATION OF LAW)

Question again proposed,
That the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

Mr. Morris: When I was interrupted, I thought that I was getting my call-up papers. I was telling the House of the few practical points I intended to make, based on my short experience as an officer on this range when I acted for some time as assistant adjutant at Castlemartin.
I accept the need for conventional weapons in Europe. My great fear is that the lack of conventional weapons might cause somebody to use nuclear weapons. It follows from this that, if there are to be conventional troops, they have to be properly trained, and that includes training on tank ranges.
The onus is on the Government to prove that a range of this kind is necessary for the training of these troops, and that similar ranges are not available anywhere else. The onus is on the Government to prove that no facilities for this training are available in Germany, and that it is absolutely necessary to bring these troops to this country.
Most of us would be unhappy about the suggestion to bring German troops here, but however repugnant that suggestion may be, I do not think that we can discriminate between one N.A.T.O. Power and another. If one looks at previous Orders, one finds that 18 countries have the facilities which this Order proposes should be made available to German troops. Among the countries to whom previous Orders apply are Italy, against whom we fought in the last war, and Portugal. As the Germans are part of N.A.T.O., surely we cannot discriminate against them on grounds of race.
It would be preferable if German troops were integrated rather than remain a national army on their own. I ask whether there is much in this question of integration. Is it little more than a facade? To what extent has integration gone on? I hope that the Minister will tell us how much this Order will further integration.
I am sure that if the Germans are to come here we must pass this Order. I

cannot visualise them coming here without it. If the decision has been taken to bring German troops here, this Order must be brought into being, but I seriously question whether it is necessary, on military grounds, to bring Germans here.
Castlemartin is a first-class tank range within its own limitations. It is described by the War Office—I had this checked this morning—as a fully fledged tank range. It shares this distinction with Bovington. Both those ranges are used for manoeuvres and gunnery practice. I understand that the only range available for use by British troops in Germany is the one at Hohne and that it is more sophisticated than the one at Castlemartin.
How many ranges in Germany have been used by our troops since the end of the war? I do not mean how many they are using now, but how many they have used since the end of the war, and how many of these contain the necessary elementary facilities which are now needed by the German troops who are to come here.

Mr. Watkinson: I gave Hohne as an example. We have the use of other ranges also, and I will give details later if the House wants them.

Mr. Morris: I would be grateful for information about what is happening today, because my information is that we use only the one at Hohne.
My queston goes deeper. How many ranges in Germany have we used since the end of the war? It would be of advantage to have information on that score. I accept that at Castlemartin there are certain elementary facilities which could be used by German troops, that many of the facilities on the German ranges are, as the Minister said, more sophisticated, and that the ranges there are hardworked indeed. I accept that, but are there British troops in Germany today who use these so-called more sophisticated ranges for the elementary work for which the Germans are to use Castlemartin? If that be so, the Government have not proved the case for shunting British troops to Germany for elementary tank practice and for shunting German troops to this country to do the same thing.
If Castlemartin is required only for elementary tank practice, and as I was


told this morning by the War Office that it could be used for gunnery and manœuvres, I should like to know whether a search has been made for other facilities and whether the Minister can satisfy the House that there are no other facilities available in Germany. I think that we should be given an answer to that question because, as I have said the onus is on the Government to prove that there is no other way available than bringing German troops to this country.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Am I correct in understanding that my hon. Friend was trained in the Tank Corps?

Mr. Morris: In the infantry.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I was trained in the Tank Corps, and like my hon. Friend, I cannot understand why it is necessary to bring to this country the crews for only 30 tanks. I think that is what the Minister indicated.

Mr. Watkinson: From 30 to 40 in the initial stage.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What I cannot understand, speaking from my own experience, is why this decision has been arrived at on military grounds. It makes me suspicious that there are other grounds.

Mr. Morris: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend has said. Obviously, this is only an experiment. It seems to me also that a great deal of trouble has been taken for the purpose of bringing to this country very few German troops. Possibly we may be told what the Government have in mind if this experiment succeeds. The test which the Minister laid down earlier was the feasibility of this as a practical experiment. I should like to know what would he the result should the experiment succeed, and how many troops the Minister has in mind to bring to this country in the future.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith)—I have not given him a proper answer—I was there as an assistant adjutant and an infantryman.
Are there any financial reasons for bringing German troops here? Is this tied up in any way with the payment for troops in Germany? How much shall we be paid on account of these Ger-

man troops being brought to this country? I hope the Minister can clarify that point and tell us what the Germans will have to pay for coming here. Will they also pay a proportion of the capital cost which has been expended over the years on Castlemartin? A large amount of public money has been invested in Castlemartin, so I should like to know how much the Germans will pay.
There is a limited acreage at Castle-martin, but within that limit it is suitable for the training of at least a brigade and, indeed, of a skeleton division. Is it the fact that while the Germans are there no other troops will be trained at Castlemartin? Does it mean that this range will be sterilised while the Germans are here and will not be available for use by units of the Territorial Army, or of the Regular Army, which would normally use it? If it is absolutely necessary to bring German troops to Pembrokeshire, why are only 30 or 40 tank crews to be trained on this range when, as I say, there is room for a greater number, and where I have seen at least a brigade trained?
Castlemartin is not an easy place in which to station Service men. There are few facilities for the crews. In my short experience there I recall that the number of courts-martial there was one of the highest among the troops stationed in that part of the country. A fine regiment which I served in had no courts-martial for the year it was stationed in Hong Kong, but when it came to Pembrokeshire there was, on every Monday morning, a long list of offenders available for trial and many of these by court-martial.
What liaison has taken place with the local police and with the civilian population? Has any thought been given by the Home Office to incidents which might occur involving not local people with members of these units, but people coming in from outside the area? I should like some information about the extent of the liaison between the local police force, the War Office and the Home Office.
The Minister told us earlier who was in command of this range. It is my experience that a visiting unit is usually under the command of its own officers in respect of internal discipline, but that


on the range it comes under the command of the range officer. I hope that the Minister can confirm this. Will the German units be entirely under the command of the range commandant or only when they are on the range? Under whose command will they be in respect of discipline and their other activities? If they are to come under the command of the range commandant for the purposes of firing on the range, it follows that he should be a fairly senior officer.
When British units come to fire at Castlemartin they are under the direct command of a no more senior officer than a subaltern. True, he may be a senior subaltern, but he is still only a subaltern. In view of obvious difficulties about rank I ask the Minister to consider whether there should not be an officer designated by N.A.T.O. to be in command for firing or, if the commandant is a British officer, that he should be of fairly senior rank. I know that the commandant of a camp is usually a colonel, but when firing on the range a British unit is often under the command of a subaltern.
Another point which I have raised on previous occasions, because I consider it an important issue, is that a large number of National Service men—I was one—were wasted; and I use the word advisedly—during their service. They were employed in putting up tents, sweeping roads and generally in keeping the camp functioning. I should like to know how many National Service men will be employed in that way.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The decision we are asked to take today is, of course, a direct consequence of the decision we took a few years ago to rearm Western Germany instead of neutralising her on the Austrian pattern, as was suggested by many of us at that time. It is a matter on which, as other hon. Members have said, emotions run very deeply.
I feel that the Government have been a little unfair to the House in the way in which they have put this proposal to hon. Members. It would have been much fairer had the Government put two distinct questions to us. First, whether we want German forces here in any capacity, and, secondly, if we do,

whether they should be covered by the Visiting Forces Act.
Taking the second question first, the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, allows forces of our N.A.T.O. allies to be present here for "any arrangements for common defence." I wish to ask the Minister whether he will expand upon that later in the debate. In today's issue of the Guardian the legal correspondent writes:
It is highly debatable whether arrangements for common defence' can be interpreted to include tank exercises along the Pembrokeshire coast, solely for purposes of military training and unrelated to any deployment of troops for the defence of the German Federal Republic, United Kingdom, or other N.A.T.O. Powers.
I should like the Minister to comment on that at a later stage. Subject to that, I think it difficult to see how we can put German forces visiting this country in a different position from other forces and deny them the cover of the Order.
The first question I asked is, I think, infinitely more important than the second. It is whether we want to have German forces here in any defence capacity. I believe that we have now reached a point at which we have to start asking ourselves about the extent to which we want armed forces of any other country here in Great Britain. One of the anxieties many of us felt at the time of the Cuban imbroglio was the possibility, if Russia and America became involved in hostilities, that the presence of American forces here in great numbers, together with vast bases and depots, might mean that we ourselves would be involved in such hostilities whatever our views of the merits of the question in dispute.
I was interested, as many hon. Members must have been interested, by the proposal made by Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery, in the Sunday Times of 18th June. He said:
Of course, any withdrawal of forces back to their own countries could not be carried out quickly. But why should it not be put forward by the West that the armed forces of all the nations should withdraw to their own national territories within the next five years, the withdrawals to be completed by the end of 1965? … In the intervening five years care would be needed to ensure that some accidental or minor episode did not lead to all-out nuclear war.
In case there should be any doubt, the field marshal summarised it a little


later in his article by saying that the new N.A.T.O. strategy involved
the withdrawal of all armed forces in Europe back to their own national territories—such a withdrawal to be agreed now and to be completed by the end of 1965.
Just as we had anxieties at the time of the Cuban incident about the presence of American forces here, so many of us share the same anxiety about the possibility of having German forces in Great Britain. I confess that my anxiety has not been altogether allayed by the reply the Minister very courteously gave to the intervention I made during his speech. He replied tonight in, I think, more placatory terms than he did on 8th February, when, in common with other hon. Members, I questioned him on this matter.
After the Minister had replied then, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. East (Mr. Frank Allaun) asked, in a supplementary question:
Will the Minister give the House two very reasonable undertakings? The first is that no high-ranking former Nazi officers will be allowed here. The second is that no training will be given in the use of missiles or nuclear weapons.
We are still not satisfied on either of the points on which the Minister refused to give an undertaking on that occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman then said:
I am not prepared to give any undertaking. What I said some time ago, and perhaps I may remind the House of it, was, first, that certain limited training of German personnel has already taken place, and I said then that if this was to be largely increased I would certainly undertake to notify the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February. 1961; Vol. 634, c. 371.]
The Minister has never given either of the undertakings for which my hon. Friend called on that occasion.
There are still three main objections remaining in the minds of many of us to this proposal. The first is the very deep feeling which is present in the minds of literally millions of people throughout this country upon this issue. The Minister may think that that feeling is unreasonable, but I do not believe that any wise Government would seek to ignore the depth of national feeling on a matter of this kind.
Our second objection is on the grounds of the foreign policy of the West German Government. Week after week we hear of speeches by men like Seebohm and Strauss, which are not repudiated by the German Chancellor, calling for the return of Germany's lost provinces in the East. I noticed with some stirring of indignation last week, when I was in Berlin, that our interpreter, in the course of his remarks, referred to the "Polish administered" areas of Germany. So long as that point of view is prevalent among the German people, and is not repudiated by the West German Government, so long shall we have anxieties about the possibility of Germany once again seeking to regain her lost territories and involving her N.A.T.O. allies in hostilities.
Our third objection is about the timing of the proposal which is before us. I believe that at this moment, when there is increasing tension about the question of Berlin, we should be doing everything we can to relax the tension rather than increasing it by taking a step of this kind, which I think will be widely regarded in other parts of the world as an act of provocation.
Under normal circumstances, I should wish to vote against the Motion. We are giving the Government a blank cheque. There is no limitation on the duration of this Order. There is no limitation on the number of troops who will be brought here and no guarantee as to the kind of activities in which they will be engaged while they are here.
I find that a dangerous situation, but I also believe that the Labour Party is the chosen instrument for improving the lot of millions of people here and overseas. I would not wish to do anything to hinder it in that work. I also believe that majority decisions, however much one may dislike them, ought to be observed. I look forward to the annual conference of the Labour Party repudiating the approval for the provision of facilities here for German forces. I hope that it will do so by a large majority, but, until that is the policy of the party, approved by annual conference, I feel that I have no other course open to me today but to register my opposition to this proposal through the speech I have made and by refusing to support the Minister's Motion in the Division Lobby.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: It is, I think, significant that in this debate the anxieties of the people of this country and the very strong feelings about the step which is being taken by the Government are being voiced solely from this side of the House, without a single word from the back benches opposite.
Members of the Tory Party follow like a flock of sheep a Government who have no concern for the feelings of millions of people in this country and who, apparently, are not in the least worried about the possible effect of this step upon the future security of the people. We on this side of the House are deeply worried and deeply anxious.
The purpose of this Order has now been made perfectly clear. This is not just Castlemartin; this is not just a few hundred men and some tanks. This is a blank cheque. It will and can lead to a position—as the Minister of Defence has already admitted—in which German troops can be brought to this country for the purpose of being trained with weapons of nuclear capability. That is precisely what he meant by saying that they have already been offered the use of the rocket range on the Hebrides.
Of course, the rockets will not have nuclear warheads. None of the men of the N.A.T.O. forces are at present being trained in the use of nuclear weapons and using weapons fitted with nuclear warheads. The absence of nuclear warheads does not mean that they are not being trained in the use of nuclear weapons, and if the Germans go to the Hebrides rocket range for training in the use of these rockets of nuclear capability they will be training for the use of nuclear weapons. Let us be quite clear about that.
The Minister has admitted in the House that if this experiment succeeds it will be extended. Outside the House he gave an indication that it was not merely a matter of the practicability of the experiment but also a question whether it succeeded in the sense of softening the resistance of the British people to the presence of organised German forces in this country. If it were found that it did not prove obnoxious to them, there would be more to follow. I hope that he will confirm

that it is the Government's intention to make this an experiment not merely from the military point of view but from the psychological point of view.
The Minister is deliberately choosing this moment of rising international tension, when feelings of hostility against the people of Eastern Europe are being worked up in this country and in the United States, to make a test of how much the British people will take. He hopes to slip this in and to follow later with others.
When I objected to this the other day at Question Time, the Minister took me to task for wanting to treat the Germans, as he said, as second-class N.A.T.O. allies. But this discrimination against the military forces of West Germany has not just begun. It is not shared by only a few people. It is certainly not something which is done on a racial ground. Let that be made clear. This discrimination was started by the Labour Government, was continued by the Conservative Government and has been written into all the treaties and undertakings given in respect of the rearmament of Germany.
Even this Order reveals an act of discrimination of which the Government have been guilty up to this moment, because in 1956 they introduced an amending Order of this type to allow all the rights and privileges conferred under the Act to be given to the visiting forces of every other N.A.T.O. ally which contributes forces to N.A.T.O.—with the single exception of the Federal Republic of Germany. In 1956 they extended it to include Portugal, Greece, Turkey and others. Why did they not extend it to include the Federal Republic of Germany? Will the Minister tell us why the Federal Republic was not included when Portugal was included? The reason is that at that time the Government still considered it right to maintain discrimination against the forces of the German Federal Republic.
The whole of the Brussels Treaty and the Paris Agreement are shot through with special discriminations against the armed forces of Western Germany. Everybody knows their purpose; it was to persuade the people of this country to accept the rearmament of Germany on the ground that there were sufficient


safeguards to prevent Western Germany from ever again becoming a first-class military Power. The Minister knows very well that it was the unanimous opinion of the House at the time that Germany must never again be allowed to become the dominant military Power in Central and Western Europe.
The original discrimination under Potsdam was that there should be no militarisation at all. Then concessions were made. Nevertheless, when the concessions were made it was agreed that because of the history of the past 100 years, because the present leaders of Germany unfortunately are men who cannot be trusted not to seek again the remilitarisation of Germany, because they are men of the type who are willing to make use of Nazi agents in leading positions in the N.A.T.O. forces, because they are men of the type to allow ex-Nazis to occupy leading positions in the German Government, because they are men of the type who believe that Germany must again become a great Power and that to become a great Power she must be a great military Power—precisely because they are men of this type, precisely because they have claims against the East which they are unwilling to abandon, precisely because they can become a danger to the peace of Europe and the world, precisely for those reasons, we all agreed that restrictions should be placed on German rearmament and that there should be discrimination against the forces of the German Federal Republic.
Let us, therefore, have no nonsense about pretending that there is something wrong in treating Germany as a second-class ally in N.A.T.O. This was what the Government did in 1954, and they were right in doing it. They are wrong only in departing from that principle—and they have been departing from it step by step. What we are witnessing tonight is only part of a process which has been going on steadily, eroding the safeguards which were written into the Brussels Treaty in 1954.
There have been no fewer than four amendments to that Treaty since it was drawn up, every one of them relaxing the provisions which restricted what Germany was allowed to manufacture under that Treaty. The Germans were not allowed to manufacture atomic, biological or chemical weapons. Now they are

allowed to purchase them or to borrow them. They were not allowed to manufacture a force of bombers, but they are now allowed to make fighter-bombers. They were not allowed to build a big navy or, in effect, any navy at all. That restriction has been removed. They were not supposed to have armed forces beyond a certain limit, although that limit was never officially published. How soon will it be before that limit, too, is relaxed and they are allowed to have armed forces without any limitation?
Tonight we are being asked to agree to a further relaxation. Let us not pretend that this will help to integrate the German forces more fully into N.A.T.O. and to bring them more under control and restraint. Of course it will not. If this process goes on there may well be an integration of the N.A.T.O. forces, but who will be the leader in that integrated force, who will dominate it, who will take the vital decisions which may lead that military force into action? More and more that decision is passing into the hands of Western Germany. That is the danger which confronts us.
What this Order does is to increase the prestige of the West German forces. That is the main purpose of it. It is to remove one of the discriminations against them and allow their forces to go outside their own country into other countries so that they can be seen and so that people can be aware of this revival of German military power. That is the real purpose of it. That is why it is a step which has to be opposed.
The Order must be opposed also in relation to the present international situation. There is a definite political motive in the timing of this announcement.

Mr. Watkinson: No. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech he would recognise that the timing was purely incidental and arose from a very long series of N.A.T.O. discussions which lasted for about one and a half years.

Mr. Warbey: In that case, would the Minister care to explain why, when he announced his decision to the House last week, he referred to the darkening international scene? Why did he do that? He deliberately linked this decision with


the present international tension. Why did he do that?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Warbey: Would the Minister like to intervene again now and answer that question?

Mr. Watkinson: Because it would only be sensible for the House to examine this very difficult and grave decision, which I have never tried to underestimate, against the present international scene, which is indeed darkening.

Mr. Warbey: In that case we now have it clear that it is related to the present international tension. I suggest that it is related in two ways. First, by bringing German forces over here at this time we are encouraged to give a gesture of support to them in the intransigent attitude which Dr. Adenauer and his friends are at present taking on the whole question of negotiations with the Soviet Union over the future of Berlin. That is the main political motive which lies behind this gesture. The second is to take advantage of the international tension to create a spirit of national unity under cover of which we are all expected to accept this N.A.T.O. decision and loyalty rally behind them and help them in their difficulties.
When we are thinking in terms of patriotism, we must look a little further ahead at present. We must think not only of present but also of future dangers facing the people of this country. One of the future dangers facing the people of this country is certainly how all of them may be affected by the possible outcome of a clash arising from this very intransigence of the West German Government at present. That means that the decision we are being asked to take tonight is of crucial international importance. This is a fundamental issue and one on which we cannot avoid taking a decision.
Those like my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) who feel that they must follow the official party line on this question tonight will do so. To abstain when we are confronted by the Government with an issue such as this, when we are asked to affirm a resolution in support of this

Order so that Germans can come here, is in effect to give consent to the Order. I understand that when my right hon. Friend speaks from the Front Bench later—

Mr. E. Shinwell: Which one?

Mr. Warbey: Whichever one happens to speak. I have no doubt that one of my right hon. Friends intends to speak at some time in the debate. I understand that whoever intervenes in the debate from the Opposition Front Bench will indicate that the Front Bench has no objection to this Order in principle. Therefore, by not voting at all we shall be accepting it and allowing it to pass through Parliament and come into effect. The only way in which it is possible to resist the Order, to try to prevent it coming into effect and to try to prevent the dangers to the people of this country which are contained in the Order, is to vote against it.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: That at least is honest.

Mr. Warbey: Since it is not possible to abstain from an abstention, if one wants to indicate one's opposition one can do so on an occasion like this only by voting against the Order. I intend to do that tonight.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I approach my consideration of this Order as one who in past controversies was opposed to the conception of German rearmament. I took the view that if Germany was rearmed and if the West German Government were permitted to arm at a rate equivalent to that at which the East German Government were arming, in all probability the future dangers of the developing situation in Europe would be added to. That was what I believed. I thought that the development of armaments in these two parts of Germany would reduce room for manoeuvre, reduce the possibility of an eventual peaceful settlement of the problem, and create an impasse which might prove to be of very great consequence indeed to the future peace of the world. I am not persuaded that we were wrong in that anxiety and apprehension.
However, I say to my hon. Friends that that issue is as dead as the dodo.


The thing is completely academic. The decision has been made. German armed forces are incorporated in the Western Alliance. I suggest to my hon. Friends —I am sure that they will accept that I do this with good will towards them—that it is unthinkable that, having regard to what I have said and in the context of a Western Alliance which, in fact, incorporates German armed forces, those forces can reasonably be deprived of training facilities in any part of the territory of the Western Alliance if we are satisfied that it is reasonable on military grounds that these training facilities should be available.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend says that it is unthinkable. In 1954, when with the tacit acquiescence of the majority of his hon. Friends and mine the thing went through, it went through on the direct representation by the Government that what my hon. and learned Friend today says is unthinkable was in fact the position. In all probability in 1954 this side of the House would have voted unanimously against German rearmament if they had thought that six years later the representations on which they accepted it would be regarded as unthinkable.

Mr. Irvine: I am obliged for that intervention, and I appreciate the point made. I take a contrary view. I think that it was implicit in the decision that German forces should play a part and participate in Western rearmament that this kind of matter would ensue. It would really be quite grotesque, I suggest, for a determination to be made upon the policy issue that there should be a German element in Western defence and for that to be followed by a denial of such an advantage as facilities for training. That was to be regarded as an inevitable consequence of such a decision—

Mr. W. Griffiths: I am trying to follow my hon. and learned Friend's argument. Does he intend to go further and say that in this integrated force the Germans, as a component part of it, should have access to nuclear weapons?

Mr. Irvine: At the time of that controversy which we all remember—perhaps, particularly, those of us on this

side of the House—I was always insistent on what would be the grave consequences of the basic policy decision. All I say now, and I am entitled to deploy my argument, is that this Order is laid because we are offering a minimum when we propose training facilities. In this context, for us now to reject the Order is wholly illogical. It is to yield to a controversial hang-over; it is an attempt to escape the minimal consequence of a decision that has been made once and for all and implemented in our recent history.
That is my view on the broader problem which is, of course, preoccupying all our minds, but I now want to carry the matter a little further on the technicalities that arise from this Order. If we accept the view I have put forward, that in the present context of our affairs we cannot reasonably deny training facilities in this country to German forces if these are regarded as militarily desirable or expedient, I suggest that we should look carefully at the content of the Order. It is desirable that we should be vigilant in a matter like this.
The first thing to be recognised is that there must be an Order if the German forces are to come here at all. If they come here without an Order there are several very complex and undesirable consequences. First of all, it would not be possible for any German soldier to carry a firearm. I understand that the German forces would be prevented from doing so by the Firearms Act, 1937 [An HON. MEMBER: "Very good, too."] That is all very well, but I am arguing this proposition on the assumption that it is reasonable that they should come here—

Mr. S. Silverman: Why not let them argue that?

Mr. Irvine: I am entitled to argue that, and I shall.
If the German forces are to come here at all for training purposes, and if they are to carry rifles, there must be an Order. In addition to that, I think it will be agreed that it is desirable that if offences are committed by German personnel against other German personnel, or by German soldiers against German property, those matters should be tried by German Service courts.
If an offence—manslaughter, grievous bodily harm or anything else—is committed by one German soldier against another inside the German visiting force, it is desirable that the matter should be tried by the Service court. If it were to be tried in a United Kingdom court, then, quite apart from other things, it would involve many real practical difficulties, translation of the language and much else, in the reasonable and correct determination of guilt of a crime alleged.
We cannot have them carrying weapons in the course of their exercises, nor can we have them determining in their own Service courts questions of guilt in allegations of crimes committed against other German soldiers or against German property, without there being an Order under the 1952 Act. Up to that point, I should have thought the argument in favour of this Order was overwhelming.
It is only right, however, that hon. Members on this side—and particularly, if I may say so, with great respect, hon. Members from the Principality—should realise that the Order goes a good deal further than that. It is important for us to recognise that the effect of the proposed Order is that if a crime is committed or alleged to be committed by a member of the visiting German force affecting a United Kingdom citizen or a British citizen, and if that crime is committed in the course of duty—which is a much wider term, as any lawyer will agree, than, for example, "in formation"—the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom court is ousted. It is important to recognise that—

Mr. Warbey: With great respect, I am afraid that is not what we are now discussing. This Order does not extend Sections 2 to 7 of the Visiting Forces Act to the forces of the German Federal Republic, but only extends Orders made under Section 8. The extension of the rest of the Order, including that part to which my hon. and learned Friend is referring, has to be done by designation, but that designation Order does not have to be discussed by this House. It is not even laid before the House. It is made by Her Majesty by Order in Council without Parliament being consulted at all.

Mr. Irvine: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but

my understanding—and I should be obliged if this could be made perfectly clear by the Government, because it is obviously important that we should know where we stand—was that this Order was part of a process, the intention of which was to put Western German forces on all fours with the forces of other N.A.T.O. Powers in this country as a visiting force under the 1952 Act. That is my understanding of the matter—

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): Both hon. Members are right. This is part of the process, but Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act is, in fact, not extended by this Order. It is extended by another Order, about which the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) knows.

Mr. Irvine: I am obliged for that intervention. I trust that I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but, as the Under-Secretary indicated, this is part of a process which will have the consequences which I have adumbrated.
I think it is important to recognise what in any event will be the consequences of the procedure of which this Order is a part, namely, that United Kingdom citizens ill-affected by such matters as dangerous driving, manslaughter and things of that kind by German visiting forces while "on duty", which is a wider term than "in formation", will not have their cases tried in the United Kingdom courts but by Service courts.
It is reasonable that hon. Members on both sides should want to probe the correctness and the consequences of this. I would remind my hon. Friends in this connection that Orders equivalent to this Order have been already made by Parliament in respect of other N.A.T.O. Powers. The provision to which I have just referred ousting the United Kingdom courts' jurisdiction in the case of crimes committed by visiting forces in the course of duty has been already applied to Italy, among other countries.
Therefore, I say to my hon. Friends that one is in a hopeless position of sheer, stark discrimination if one is going to argue that the provisions of the 1952 Act, which have been made applicable to our Italian ex-enemies, should not be applicable to German visiting forces.

Mr. Warbey: My hon. and learned Friend will recall that there are no discriminations against Italy in the Brussels Treaty but only against Western Germany.

Mr. Irvine: I am speaking about Orders under the 1952 Act, and what is quite clear—at least, I regard it as so—is that this provision ousting the United Kingdom court's jurisdiction in the kind of case to which I have referred has been applied to Italy. There was no reason why this should be so. The first Section, I believe, of the 1952 Act made explicit provision that the effect of the Act could be extended by Order to different countries with such limitations as Parliament might regard as desirable.
It would have been perfectly possible, with reference to others of our N.A.T.O. associates, to say that the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts should be ousted only in the case of offences committed by visiting forces personnel against other visiting forces personnel or by visiting forces personnel against visiting forces property. But no such limitation was included in any of the Orders under the Act.

Mr. Shinwell: I was in some confusion when my hon. and learned Friend spoke about Italian forces coming within the ambit of these Orders. I cannot recall a time when Italian forces were brought to this country under the direction of N.A.T.O., or in some other fashion, to train.

Mr. Irvine: The point I wish to make clear is that, whatever may have been the actual movement of Italian personnel, in fact an Order was made under the Act relating to Italian forces, and if my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will look at paragraph 2 of the Order now before us he will see that what is proposed is that in paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the principal Order for the words "and Italy" shall be substituted the words "Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany."
Surely my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington would be the first to agree that, whether it has been operative or not, the Order relating in law to the Italian forces who might come was made without any limitation on this ousting of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom

courts. Some of my hon. Friends will be in great difficulty indeed if they try to argue that there should be a different treatment by Parliament of German visiting forces from the kind of treatment which Parliament has declared is appropriate for another ex-enemy. On these grounds I would argue the case that it would be unwise to propose any limitation in this Order which had not been made in respect of Orders relating to other N.A.T.O. forces.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my hon. and Learned Friend say whether he intends to vote for the Order?

Mr. Irvine: I am not going to oppose the Order.

Mr. Foot: My hon. and learned Friend is speaking in favour of it.

Mr. Irvine: I have heard the proposition put by an hon. Member that while he disagrees with the Order he is not going to vote against it until he gets the sanction of the party conference. That is not a proposition to which I can give my agreement. I am considering this on the merits, should we oppose this Motion or should we not? Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey)—and I respect his admirable candour—have recognised this point. Each of us will act according to his opinion and belief.

Mr. Leo Abse: Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool) rose—

Mr. Irvine: No. I cannot give way again. I am putting to the House the case that if we are to have German forces here for training facilities at all—and this I have argued, in the immediate context of our affairs, may be necessary —there must be an Order to make any sense of it whatsoever, and I am arguing the case, especially in view of the earlier Orders, against any discrimination against German N.A.T.O. troops.
When a Visiting Forces Bill was debated before the war—and that was a Bill relating to Commonwealth troops —the opposition of the Labour Party was founded on the view that it should be provided that Commonwealth forces visiting this country should have the right to go by writ of habeas corpus to the High Court. The exclusion of that right was objected to by Labour members during a debate on that occasion.


As I understand it, that disadvantage—if it was a disadvantage—is applicable also to visiting forces coming to this country under the provisions of the 1952 Visiting Forces Act.
Just as I do not think that we should discriminate against German visiting forces, so I do not think that we should discriminate in their favour. I am not disposed to argue the case that it should be open to these visiting forces to go by way of writ of habeas corpus to the United Kingdom courts. That would be going too far, and it is not to be desired. It was strongly arguable and probably correct relative to visiting forces from the Empire as it used to be, and the Commonwealth as it is now, but it should not be applicable to German forces coming here.
I do not think we should discriminate in favour of German visiting forces, but equally I think we would be very wrong to discriminate against them. We would be wrong in terms of basic Socialist philosophy and in terms of basic conceptions affecting the brotherhood of man and all the rest. Is that language which has been used to some effect on past occasions to be regarded now as just humbug, so that we give an Italian ex-enemy an advantage which we deny to his Germany ally? Surely my hon. Friends on reflection will not fall for such an unworthy and abysmal confusion of thought and purpose.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I have no wish to make matters worse within the Opposition. Indeed, the last half hour has been one of the most interesting that I have experienced for a long time, bringing out the various points of view that exist and the split within the Opposition.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And in the country.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) made a very thoughtful speech and I find myself in agreement with the basic premise of what he has just said. I am in agreement with him when he says that this would be a logical conclusion from the original decision taken in 1954.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) said that we on this side of the House were not concerned and were not worried about the matter at all. That is a monstrous statement.

Mr. Warbey: Mr. Warbey rose—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. I have only just risen to my feet.
We on these benches have done just as much heart-searching as he has. This is just as great a decision for us to take as it is for him. It was a most unfortunate way of stating the position just because nobody on this side of the House spoke before he did. This is a grave decision for anybody to take. We on this side of the House—and here I am speaking for myself—have devoted a great deal of thought to the matter. I support this Order, but I had to do a great deal of thinking before deciding to do so.

Mr. Warbey: First may I withdraw the remark that I made in relation to the hon. Gentleman? I am very glad that he has risen to speak in this debate. At the time when I made the remark, about twenty of my hon. Friends had risen to speak, but not a single hon. Member on the benches opposite had done so.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in withdrawing the remark. He will remember that precisely two hon. Members spoke before he did.
I have risen to speak largely as a result of remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Ashfield and his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood). It is extraordinary that one should argue that we should isolate the German forces, that we should send them back, as the hon. Member for Rossendale suggested, and then, in the same breath, say that the danger is that the Germans may rearm and dominate Europe again. I do not understand how one can argue those two premises and not see the force of the other argument that if we train with them and integrate our services and our arms, that is doing a much greater service and is more likely to ensure peace than by trying to isolate them and letting all the old resentments boil up again.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on another point, namely, when he stated that the most dangerous threat was the threat of a resurgent Germany led by the Federal Chancellor who wanted to start a war again. That is not so. To my mind, the greatest threat is the threat of Communism, the Russian and Chinese Communist threat to our freedom and that of the Western world. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) apparently agrees with me.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not agree.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should think that the tension which is mounting over Berlin, and which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashfield, has not been engendered by the Communist leaders. If I remember rightly, the hon. Gentleman said that it is the Western German Government who have caused this tension to mount in Europe over Berlin. In my view, it is exactly the opposite. It is the Russians who are causing the tension to mount. As I am sure the majority of hon. Members will agree, by far the greater part of this threat has come from the arrogance of Khrushchev in wanting to dominate not only Europe but the entire world. I am sure that many hon. Members will agree that that is a far greater danger than any which the Federal German Government may cause in the future.
At the same time, the hon. Member for Ashfield said that this decision that had been taken related to current events. He said that the reason why the Germans were coming over here to train and the reason why my right hon. Friend had laid this Order now, so as to enable it to be slipped through, was the mounting tension in Europe. That is not true. The hon. Member is confusing two issues. What has happened is that these discussions and negotiations began over a year ago, and it just happens that the Russian Communist leader has chosen this time at which to increase the tension. It would be wrong of my right hon. Friend to disguise from the House that at the moment there is tension and danger of war. But that does not mean that he is trying to slide in this Order and is trying to trick the British people. That suggestion I reject entirely. This is related to present-day

events, of course, but it is not the cause of them. We have got to accept the fact that these German troops, in minimal numbers, should come and train at Castlemartin.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Why?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It was explained yesterday and today, and the hon. Member should know why they are coming over here. N.A.T.O. has asked that they should be given facilities to train on this tank range. The training grounds in Western Germany are not suitable for this kind of training—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I once served in the Tank Corps in Germany and know that there are ample facilities between the Rhine and the frontier for training the German tank units?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I, too, did two tours of duty in Germany after the war, and, although I am not entirely conversant with what is there now, I have an idea from what I knew at that time. I served with an infantry regiment, and on the staff as well. The hon. Gentleman should not forget that there are other troops stationed in Germany, apart from the Federal German forces themselves.
My right hon. Friend has told us that the tank training grounds there are being used for more advanced training, training on the move, and so forth. This is more advanced training than the type of training to be undergone by the German troops on the range at Castlemartin. Facilities for this basic, initial training are needed here. Such facilities, or not such good facilities, are not available in Germany today to the same extent.
We must not look always over our shoulders and try to whip up the animosities of the past, of fifteen years and more ago. That is the way that disaster will come. There can be no doubt about that. We face danger today, but it is danger from Communism, from the Communists of Russia and China who want to dominate us both physically and mentally.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Germans wanted to do that.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: So they did.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Twice.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, twice. So did the French under Napoleon, but they are some of our most valuable allies today. How long can one live in the past? How long is this incredible business of looking over one's shoulder to go on? Hon. Members opposite spend most of their time looking over their shoulders. That is why they are on those benches, not these.
We must now look to the future. We must try to build up the Western world and try to work together. This is a great decision, but we must face the fact that, if we do not integrate and come together as free nations, we may in the future no longer be free but be dominated by the terror of Communism.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) sought, at the beginning of his speech, to extract some satisfaction from the controversy in this party. I invite him to probe into the rumblings in his own precious party, where there is considerable discontent and controversy even to the point of wondering whether the time has arrived for the Prime Minister to retire.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is that true?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he should make those remarks now, and what possible relevance they can have?

Mr. Shinwell: I was reminding the hon. Gentleman of what he said at the beginning of his speech. He enjoyed himself prematurely by suggesting that, once again, there was controversy within the Labour Party. He derived some satisfaction from that fact. It is a fact, of course. Over a long period of years there has been controversy, sometimes heightened and sometimes not so tense, on the subject of defence and ancillary issues. I grant him that. But it is no bad thing to have controversy occasionally.

Mr. Rupert Speir: Better than Communism.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) had better not interject otherwise, he will get more than he bargained for.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: The right hon. Gentleman is bullying young Members.

Mr. Shinwell: There were no serious interruptions when other hon. Members were speaking. I am merely replying to what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said. That is the purpose of this Assembly, to debate topics of this character. That is what I am doing.
I have not come to the House with a set speech, prepared over a period of weeks after much indulgence in the midnight oil. I listen to what hon. Members have to say, and I seek to reply. I should reply to the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) if he had anything intelligent to say to the House. On the rare occasions when he has addressed the House, I have never considered that he was worth replying to. I hope that that settles him.
I am not seriously concerned about the legal subtleties which have been injected into the debate, or about the technicalities. Hon. Members may regard it as they please, but I am concerned with this issue from an emotional standpoint. I dislike intensely, with all the power at my command, the idea of having Germans training in this country. All the logic-chopping does not matter in the least.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If any hon. Member is in doubt, let him ask the people.

Mr. Shinwell: There is, of course, a practical issue involved, but, before I come to that, I will deal with the subject raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), namely, how German rearmament emerged. I probably know as much about that as anyone in this assembly, because I was associated with German rearmament at the outset. I confess freely and frankly that I had as much to do with the proposal about German rearmament that was put before the House several years ago as any hon. or right hon. Member.
I do not apologise for it, because, at the time, due to the weakness of the French and the undoubted inability of the then N.A.T.O. countries to provide conventional forces—we were then not concerned about nuclear weapons—it was considered desirable by the Labour Government, the United States Government


and other Governments to permit the Germans in the Federal part of Germany to create at that time what were regarded as para-military forces. There never was any intention to permit the revival of German militarism. But that is what we are having.
Let us consider what has happened over the years when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) pointed out, the Brussels Treaty has been revised on at least four occasions. To begin with, it was para-military farces, with, so it was thought at the time, effective safeguards against a resurgence of German militarism, a vast German Army and the possibility of the re-emergence of a German Navy. On four occasions. great changes have taken place, until now, as the Minister of Defence will not seek to deny, in respect of compact forces in the conventional sphere—I say nothing about nuclear weapons—apart from the contribution made by the United States Government, in Western Europe the Federal German Government are the strongest military Power. There can be no question about that. If any hon. Member challenges me on the facts, I will furnish the evidence.
I admit that it was the inevitable result, not of the emergence of German rearmament at the beginning, because it was hoped to provide effective safeguards, but of the revision of the Brussels Treaty on several occasions. We have to accept the inevitable. The question is: ought we not on some issue and on some occasion to cry a halt? This is such an occasion.
I wish to put a question which occurs to me, and I should like the Minister his deputy, or any hon. Member, to reply to it. Suppose that it were decided tonight, as a result of the Government's reconsideration, to withdraw this proposal that German forces, numbering 600, should come to this country. Would it make any substantial difference to the strength of N.A.T.O.? Is not that a fair question?

Mr. Speir: It is an idiotic question.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it make any real difference? Would not N.A.T.O. be just as strong tomorrow as it was yesterday? Of course it would. Then what is the purpose of this proposal? Obviously,

it is not intended to strengthen the military force of N.A.T.O.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North produced the usual bogey—Khrushchey, Communism, and all the rest of it—as if the presence of 600 German soldiers training at Castlemartin, with all the paraphernalia laid on, will make the slightest difference to Mr. Khrushchev's intentions. It is just utter nonsense. The hon. Member has his view, and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich said, he is a quite young man. We will leave him to it.
Surely I have put a question which deserves a reply. What beneficial result will flow from the presence of 600 German soldiers in this country?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Mr. Scott-Hopkins rose—

Mr. Shinwell: Just a moment. The hon. Gentleman has had his ration.
On the other hand, is it not likely—I do not wish to rate it too highly—that the presence of 600 German soldiers in the Principality—although the whole of Britain is obviously concerned about it one way or the other, some in favour of it and some against it—would create a considerable amount of discontent, wonderment and bewilderment as to why this is necessary even from a practical point of view? There is no advantage in it at all.
I beg the Minister's pardon, since I was unable to be present when he began his speech. I was engaged in some writing. It was not until I looked at the annunciator that I realised that he had begun to address the House. I gather that the case presented by the right hon. Gentleman was this. This is a decision of N.A.T.O. But is it? Was it not rather the result of the conversations which the right hon. Gentleman had with his opposite number, Herr Strauss? I know that the conversations are confidential—

Mr. Watkinson: I am not sure how much of my speech the right hon. Gentlemen heard, but I hope that I made it quite plain that this was purely a N.A.T.O. piece of co-operation. I explained, at some length, how it grew up from the original request from the Germans to N.A.T.O. as a whole. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not present when I dealt with that matter.

Mr. Shinwell: All I have to say is that it surprises me. I was once a member of the N.A.T.O. Council. The idea that it met in solemn conclave, and, as a result of much cogitation, deliberation and discussion, came to the conclusion that to strengthen N.A.T.O. and to present a stern defensive front—I shall not say an offensive front—to Mr. Khrushchev and company it was necessary to have 600 German soldiers training in Wales, is incomprehensible to me.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill said, "We require this Order. After all, is it not the inevitable sequel of what has gone before, since the Italians were provided with facilities?" When I questioned him, he admitted that the Italians have not come here and that the Order concerning the Italians had not been operative. If the Order had been operative, two things might have been said about it. First, that the Italians did not start two wars in this century. That is worth some consideration. Secondly, that if they had come, and we had been discussing the Italians tonight, there still might be very strong objections. The fact is, however, that those questions are irrelevant, because the Order was never operative, and that is that.
We are dealing with something quite different. We are dealing partly with the background to this proposal. It is nothing to do with what some hon. Members have suggested, namely, that this is the consequence of strong, embittered racial feeling. I know the Germans as well as anyone. I attended international conferences in Germany before the First World War—before many hon. Members now present saw the light of day. I remember the Social Democrats who went wrong before the First World War—more is the pity. I remember the Independent Socialists in Germany. I remember Babel, Leibnecht and Rosa Luxemburg.
These were very fine people. There are still fine people in Germany. There are some people in this country who are not so fine—I will not mention any names. There is no question of racial feeling about this matter. It is the background which impels some of us to say to our friends, and even to those who are not our good friends, "Do not you think that you ought to call a halt to

this business, because one of these days we shall suffer from it?"
I wish I knew what Herr Strauss was up to. He is the real villain of the piece. I say to the Minister of Defence, for whom I have a great regard and who is doing his job very well, although I do not agree with him on this issue, "Watch your step when you are dealing with that gentleman". I do not care very much about him. Probably he does not care very much about me, but that is beside the point.
Let me come back to the real issue. Will it be of any advantage from a military point of view to have these Germans training in this country? Suppose we decided tonight that we should not have them and that hon. Members opposite used a little common sense and were backed by the Minister and several others who thought that this was an undesirable approach to the strengthening of N.A.T.O. Would it do any harm? Of course it would not.
My final point concerns a personal matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood), who made an admirable speech, said that, although he has come to a personal decision, he would prefer to wait until the Labour Party conference before he came to a decision about voting. Then it seemed to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield indicated that he would like to vote because he felt very strongly about the matter. He suggested that he was an honest man and that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale was not quite so honest.
Where do I come in? I shall be quite frank with the House, whatever hon. Members may think about my morals. I say this quite deliberately. I do not know whether this will appear in the newspapers. I hope that it will. I do not wish to see unnecessary controversy in my own party. I wish to see it united and harmonious. I do not say that we should not have a bit of a row occasionally. That is very good for us, and, anyway, I like it. I want to see the members of my party harmonious and non-controversial, at least on topics of this kind. I want to see them strong, lively, animated and dynamic, so that they can clear this Government out as quickly as possible. That is what I want.
If it comes to a question of voting tonight, then, strong as my feelings are, and they are very strong on this issue—I do not regard it exclusively from an emotional standpoint, but from a practical standpoint, also—I do not intend to vote. My party says, "Better not to vote." All right. I am told, "Make your speech." I make my speech, I express my opinions and I hold by them very strongly.
I wish that the Government would not do this deed. Now that they have decided to do it, however, let them go ahead and see what the results are. I hope that there will be no trouble in South Wales. I do not want to see these young Germans molested—they are probably quite innocent young men—although some little difficulty might emerge in consequence of this action. All the same, I shall not vote tonight. I have said my say and I leave it at that.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Leavey: It is nearly always a mistake to be provoked into making a speech in this House, but I admit that I have found myself provoked to do so by the speech of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). It was that part of his speech in which he implied that there was no understanding on this side of the House of the feelings of the British people about this difficult issue.
I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) responded to that challenge and that his response was rightly recognised by the hon. Member for Ashfield. Perhaps, however, there can be a second person who speaks from this side of the House to make the hon. Member quite sure that my hon. Friend is not alone in what he says. I say that, furthermore, because it would be unfortunate—I choose a temperate word—if in some extraordinary way it were thought that the hon. Member for Ashfield was the custodian of the views of a great number of people on this issue.
In his entertaining and effective speech. the right hon. Member for Essington (Mr. Shinwell) has told us that this is an emotional issue. I go that distance with him wholeheartedly. Of course, it is an emotional issue, and I confess that I am not very proud of my

emotions on it. I feel no satisfaction at all at the thought that German troops will be coming to train in this country.
I am not very proud of that emotion, because it is simply a matter of harking back and having a deep resentment of what has happened in two world wars. I have experience of only one of them. These troops are troops to whom we used to refer as a Panzer battalion, and that is a word which has a disagreeable connotation for most of us. I am surprised that the right lion. Member for Easing-ton based his case upon the fact that he was deciding to abstain from voting on an emotional matter. I should have thought that, having recognised that it was an emotional matter, the right hon. Gentleman might have felt able to make a more positive decision and to record it in a more positive way.
Having said that, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence is right in asking us to support him in this proposal. I do not feel that if we are asking half of the German people to fight beside us, if need be, and to be our allies wholeheartedly in N.A.T.O., we can withhold this facility any more than we would be justified, if the occasion arose, in withholding it from the Italians.
It was a trifle unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Easington, who claims many years' experience in this place, went on to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North was, perhaps, rather naïve in this matter and that to bring a tank battalion here would not affect the position. It could be argued that an initial step cannot be effective and that it is only what follows that will build up substantial strength. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman even convinced himself on that point.
If we have integrated arms and standardised weapons to the extent to which my right hon. Friend the Minister suggests, I wonder whether integration has gone as far as it ought to have gone in the past. If this integration means that in the future there will be a real dependence upon these bases and these supplies spread geographically in this way, I wonder whether the attempts that have been made hitherto to integrate the forces and to standardise weapons, and so on. have not lagged very much behind what some of us had assumed.
I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that we should regard this matter on a tit-for-tat basis and that, until we are satisfied that we have used similar existing facilities in Germany, we should be doubtful about providing them here. That is not a point of view to which I subscribe.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: One of the definite features of the Minister's contention for having these 600 German troops here is that it will be a preliminary training course. The Minister admits that there are bigger tank training grounds in Germany, but states that because our troops there are doing advanced training he does not consider them suitable for preliminary training. I am not clear about this. I am not an expert on it, but it appears to me that if the capabilities are so vast there could be preliminary training there as well as advanced training, unless there is some other reason.

Mr. Leavey: There is every reason to harken to the words of the hon. Member for Aberavon when he said that it seemed illogical to shunt German forces here with the ensuing administrative difficulty and with the embarrassment that might be caused and with the disturbance to our emotions, and to shunt our troops to Germany. If the switch is unnecessary, it is open to all the condemnation which the hon. Member suggested. I do not, however, assume that to be the case.
When this matter was first raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister, he made it clear to me, at least, that there were facilities at Castlemartin for stationary firing from concrete bases, that those facilities were not available to these troops in Germany, but that they were available at Castlemartin and that it seemed logical enough that we should provide them for one of our N.A.T.O. allies. That is a sensible thing to do and I should not have thought that the West German military authorities would have accepted that opportunity unless it was necessary for them to do so, because it will be a fairly costly operation to move their tanks and armoured fighting vehicles from Germany to this country and to go through all the process of administration.
I am very glad, therefore, to support my right hon. Friend's proposal, although, as he has already recognised, we feel uncomfortable about it. There are some characteristics and qualities in the German people which alarm me. I feel certain apprehensions and I am bound to express them. But I cannot see that we would be justified in saying that because of those apprehensions and fears, because the Germans were our enemies in the last war, they must be different from all our other N.A.T.O. allies.
My final point concerns administration. In view of the fact, which is recognised by all of us, whatever our views on this proposal may be, that it will make certain demands upon the emotions of the British people, I ask my right hon. Friend to give instructions that the administrative services provided by British personnel at Castlemartin are so arranged that, as far as possible, British soldiers are not unduly put in the position of fetching and carrying for this visiting German tank battalion. It is important to avoid that as far as we can, because a man who is placed in such a situation might feel disgruntled.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: It seems to me that it might be convenient if at this point in the debate I were to say some words to the House about the approach which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I make to this subject, and, perhaps, to offer a word or two of advice, if I may.
One or two conservative hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who is now leaving us, enlivened the debate a little earlier with some remarks about the Labour Party and the fact that we were having an argument among ourselves on this subject. I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North before he goes that I think that the criticism which he thought fit to make this evening comes ill from a Government party which, on an issue so difficult and troublesome not only to the emotions but to the minds of many people, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) recognised, has not been able to maintain a reasonable representation on its own benches throughout the debate.
At no time on the benches opposite have there been enough Members to make a debate of it. Apart from the two hon. Gentlemen opposite who have made speeches, none of their hon. Friends has evinced the slightest desire to take part in the debate. I simply tell the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, without making too much of it, that on an issue on which a lot of our constituents, rightly or wrongly, will have considerable difficulty in making up their minds what is the right thing to do it is extraordinary that there is so little interest on the part of the Conservative Party in this House about it; and for decency's sake, if for no other reason, they ought not to complain that we debate the issue.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman is being less than fair to me. When I said in my speech that there was interest and sympathy in what had been going on on the benches on his side of the House, I said at the same time, or a little later, as I am sure he will recall to mind, that there had been a great deal of heart-searching on my part and also on the part of my hon. Friend in coming to our conclusions upon this matter. I am sure that that does not apply to ourselves only but to many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.

Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman please get it clear that it is not his interest and sympathy that we want when as Members of this House we debate a public issue of tremendous importance: we are doing our duty. If there are different views about where the balance of argument lies between us on this side of the House, then it is still our duty to deploy the various views and the various arguments. It is astonishing to me that there is no difference of view on the benches opposite, and even more astonishing to me that so few people over there have attended this debate. I repeat, I am even more surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have tried to inject that little bit of political prejudice into the debate.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Is it not possible that the poor attendance on the other side of the House is because it has leaked out that the Opposition does not intend to divide against the Motion?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has been as long in the House as I have, and if it is argued, as of course it is argued when it suits some hon. Gentlemen to argue it, that we need to turn up for a debate because it is known that a Division will follow at the end of it, I am bound to remind my hon. Friend that were that so, many of the greatest historical occasions in this House would never have taken place. A debate is still required in this House whether or not at the end of the day we are asked to record our views in the Division Lobbies.
However, I have said what I wanted to say on that matter, and it was purely incidental, and I come now to what I really wanted to say. I want to begin by making it plain that none of us, I think, can come easily to the decision to which the Government are asking us to come tonight. I, like many of hon. and right hon. Friends and, I suspect, many other people, have great difficulty at this point in time in making up my mind that I am ready to see, much less want to see, German uniformed formations, and a tank formation at that, with all that it conjures up in one's mind, with all that it connotes, training or manœuvring in this country or driving about our roads. I find it very difficult indeed happily or willingly to face that position, and there is nobody sitting anywhere in this House who finds it harder than I do, or has stronger personal reasons for finding it hard, to face this decision. It is a difficult issue, and I agree with those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have said that we ought to be asked to face it only if, in fact, there is a great need for it to be done.
It is not enough to say that it logically flows from a decision which we took some years ago. The fact that one step leads to another may be a logical defence, but it is not a case for saying that because we take the first step we have to take the second step. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that there are points, in what is otherwise a logical progression, where one is perfectly entitled to say, "For a moment I want to stop there, because I do not see the case for going on beyond." The simple statement that, because we once agreed to the rearmament of Western Germany, we once agreed to the entry


of Germany into N.A.T.O., therefore we have to agree to other things following, irrespective of the situation, seems to me to be an untenable argument.
Holding strong emotional views about Germans in uniform operating in our country does not necessarily mean—I agree that it does sometimes mean it, and that when it does it should not mean it—that one is regarding the Germans as an inferior people or thinking that for all time the Germans should be subject to special disadvantages or disabilities. There is in all this a matter of time.
Defence is not only a matter of laying down on paper what ought to be done. It is not only a matter of bringing troops and arms together in a certain size and manner. Defence is also a matter of carrying with one the hearts and minds of one's people. One has to allow in this for psychological feeling; one has to allow in this for outlook; and if one wants to do at a particular moment something which involves a great psychological and disadvantageous impact upon the people whose whole- hearted participation in one's defence programme one needs, then one has to stop to reconsider, whatever the otherwise apparently convincing military arguments may be.
I cannot from this bench say that there is a case for a German tank battalion training in this country at the moment. By the same standards, I cannot say that there is not. Clearly I have not that information. One collects what one can. Sometimes I am rather proud of what I manage to pick up on the way round, but I cannot possibly take the responsibility of saying that there is or there is not a case. This is the case that the Government have to make, and what I am saying to them and to hon. Members opposite is that they really have to make it. They really are taking responsibility for it. They have to show people that there is a case.
I do not seek to quote or misquote him but I paraphrase and give my impression that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton accepted the assumption that there was a very strong case for these fellows coming here and doing their training here. One thing that makes me still pause a little about the strength of the case is that this cannot have been

the first German tank battalion that had to do its elementary tank training. I know that the German forces are not yet that strong and not yet that heavily armoured and I am prepared to believe that so far there may not have been a great deal of tank training, but I am pretty sure that somebody must have done some tank training.
Where did they do theirs? Is it the Government's case that they did theirs on a range which has since become much more crowded by Allied troops using it or since much more required for what the Minister calls more sophisticated training and therefore it is not as easy to fit in the elementary training of this battalion as it was with the others?
If that is the Minister's case there is then the question whether the case is being made with sufficient urgency or force. Like so many others, I frankly would have liked to have said that I do not want this to happen yet. I honestly cannot say on the evidence that I have been able to collect that I can disprove sufficiently the case that has been made for it. I should like to hear rather more about the strength of it and about the urgency at this point. I cannot go as far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, although to some extent I agree with him, in asking whether if we take these men away tonight, it will really affect the strength of N.A.T.O. If we take 600 men away from training here, it does not alter all that much the strength of N.A.T.O. Presumably they would find something somewhere else. But the point which, with respect, my right hon. Friend did not allow for was that N.A.T.O. and its strength is made up of a whole collection of different divisions many of which will be necessarily small ones.
There is a whole collection of different deployments and different acts. We can say of one of them that if we do not do that it does not matter a great deal, but if we do not do one of these acts there is then some case for not doing another, and we end with a situation where the alliance does not work, because one can be sure that a decision that is not convenient for someone will not be taken.
I cannot go as far as to say that unless it is proved that these forces must be here now, the case is not proved, but


think that the Minister, and to this extent I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, must really show that it is more than just a convenience for somebody. He must show that this is a reasonable military requirement of the alliance and a reasonably sensible deployment of the facilities we have.
I should like to answer an interjection earlier when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) was speaking. It was to the effect that there is something wrong about not deciding whether or not to vote tonight. I do not have to take responsibility for it. I repeat that I cannot take the responsibility. I have to decide whether the case against having these men here seems so strong that have positively to take steps to oppose it. That is all I am asked to decide. That is the only proper consideration to which I have to address my mind. If I can say, as I do say, that the case for it has not yet seemed to me all that overwhelmingly strong—

Mr. S. Silverman: The decision will be taken tonight.

Mr. Brown: Will my hon. Friend give me credit and listen to my argument?
Even though I am able to say that the case for it has not been made up to all that strength, nevertheless if I say that the case against it has not equally demolished the case for it to my satisfaction, I am in a perfectly strong position to say in that event that I will not oppose it. I will not take the responsibility—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And the Government carry it unanimously.

Mr. Brown: That is not the argument. Hon. Members do themselves and the House a very grave disservice when they seek to argue that on every balanced issue we have to go into one or other of the Division Lobbies.

Mr. Silverman: That was not being said.

Mr. Brown: If that was not being said, there was not much point in the interjection made. It is a perfectly tenable position to say, "It has to be your responsibility; only you have the information and the authority. It has to

be our responsibility to decide whether to try to stop you in what you are seeking to do. In fact, if we decide not to try to stop you because, in our view, the case for stopping you is not shown to be all that strong, that is a perfectly tenable, honourable and traditional role for the Opposition in this House to take."

Mr. Silverman: The decision for or against this Order has to be made by an affirmative Resolution; whether we accept it or not, a decision will be made tonight, with or without a Division. Is my right hon. Friend saying that this is not so important a matter that we need take a decision either way? If he is not saying that, but is saying that it is an important matter, that the onus of proof is on the Government, and the Government have not discharged that onus, how can we justify not voting against it?

Mr. Brown: With great respect to my hon. Friend, if he did not talk while one was speaking, the sense of one's argument would get over a little better. I well understand that we are debating an affirmative Order. I well understand that the decision will be taken tonight It does not necessarily follow that I have to share the responsibility for the Order If I do not share the responsibility for it, it does not automatically follow that I, therefore, have to take the responsibility of saying that the decision will be wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That has never been the position; it is much too simple a view to take of the rôle that this House plays.

Mr. M. Foot: What would the night hon. Gentleman recommend someone to do who is passionately opposed to this Order and who thinks that not only have the Government not made their case, but that the whole Order is wrong?

Mr. Brown: I will come in a moment to the advice which I want to give to my hon. Friends and if that advice is also agreeable to other parties or groups in the House, I shall be delighted to see my hon. Friend taking it.
The Government have offered a case. In that case there is some strength. I do not dispute that. One of the points which the Minister made, and which impressed me more than it appears to have impressed some other hon. Members, I should like to repeat. The more one


can provide a situation in which there is an integration of logistics, supply, training facilities and weapons, the further one is away from the possibility of a national force coming under irresponsible command.
That is a very powerful point indeed. I do not want to make special reference to the Germans. Think what this is, after all, to the younger generation of Germans, who are having to work a democratic system for the first time. The Weimar Republic had too short a term of history for it to be called a system. For the present generation the more one argues this in relation to Germans the more insulting it must appear to them and the more difficult it must be for them to regard we democrats as their friend. It is better to argue in relation to us all.
Even so, let me take the risk of saying to those who feel that there is still a special problem with regard to Germany in the light of past history and in the light of some continuation in the present day, some hang-over, from that history, that this argument about integration is a very much more important one to them than it is to other people. Clearly it must be so. If there is no national general staff, if there is no national provision of facilities of this kind, if they are dependent upon other people for their logistical and supply chain, if they are operating with weapons that they are not themselves making, then we have gone a great deal further towards making impossible a repetition of the history between the two wars and even before the first war.
I think that to that extent there is a case here, and that is one of my difficulties. It may be that I feel that the urgency of the absolute need at this moment does not go all that strongly through the Minister's case, but I see this other point. I am often asked to make the case that it would be better to train the Germans in Germany and the Englishmen in England. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Scotsmen in Scotland."] This argument can be put with a variety of refinements. Speaking more as an Irishman than anything else, I would settle for England.
Sometimes people ask one to put this case, and I am reluctant to put it even though it may be shown to me that there

is a certain amount of unnecessary movement. I should still be reluctant to put it for this reason, because I do not want to get to the position where the West German Army is wholly self-sufficient in this or any other direction. I think it is a mistake and a shortsighted view to believe that even if that were possible it would be a desirable thing to do.
There is one other problem that worries me about opposing this Order, although really what we are doing tonight is discussing the issue of the troops rather than the issue of the Order. Something worries me whatever I feel about the strength of the Minister's case. I hope that hon. Gentlemen who may disagree with me will nevertheless hear me through again. It is this problem of getting into what seems to me to be indistinguishable from a racial opposition. This is one of the terrifying things of the world—this visiting of sins upon a whole people and declaring a whole people to be guilty as a people and ending up with the terrible situation where somebody says, "Ah, but that is not true of me. Some of my best friends are"—it used to be "Jews", and now it is the same thing about "Germans". This is a very easy descent.
We were prepared to give these facilities to the Italians. It does not matter whether the Italians actually came to this country or not; the point was that we were prepared to, and we did without opposition in this House provide facilities which would have been available to them had N.A.T.O. asked. There was no other step which we should have had to take. We made facilities available so that had N.A.T.O. asked us to take the Italians no other request would have been before this House. If we were prepared to do that for the Italians, for the French, for the Turks, for the Greeks—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: For the Portuguese.

Mr. Brown: —for the Portuguese and all the rest. If we stop at the Germans, it is very difficult to be really convinced that one is not, whatever one says, making a racial attack on one group of people.
This worries me very much. I am trying to be quite earnest about it because it worries me a lot. It is so easy


to persuade oneself that one is doing for heartfelt but decent emotional reasons. It is so easy to persuade oneself because of a particular point in time, and it is so easy to delude oneself and to end in a position where others have been before; where, without carrying out or permitting to be carried out anti-racial policies, and by cloaking the matter with a lot of well-meaning words—which we probably believe—we assume the form that people give to their conscience to allow them to participate in what is at bottom a very improper and indecent emotion.

Mr. Greenwood: Can my right hon. Friend tell us why he regards it as racialism to say that the Germans may not have bases in this country, but that it is not racialism to say that they must not have nuclear weapons—which is the policy of the Labour Party?

Mr. Brown: I think that there is a great difference here. I do not want any other members of the N.A.T.O. alliance to make or provide nuclear weapons. I shall be one of those commending that policy to our party conference in October. This is one of the points which is even applicable to ourselves. Therefore, I should not want the Germans to have them and I do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of the German forces. Indeed, I do not want the kind of nuclear weapons which now exist to be in the hands of the forces in West Germany at all, for what I think are very strong military reasons, and I have argued that before in debates in this House.
What I have to say in relation to the Germans on that score is quite a different argument from the general argument that they ought not to be permitted to enter this country because they are in fact Germans.

Mr. Warbey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brown: No, I am sorry.
I have tried to put before the House the different considerations that must be in the mind of somebody trying to argue this thing through. There is still some room somewhere for the Minister to show that this matter is as urgent as it ought to be, that it is as necessary as it ought to be, if our people are to be asked to accept it at this moment and to settle down with this idea.

Incidentally, I have no doubt that if we ask our people to do so, they will do exactly that. I doubt whether the feeling outside this House among ordinary people is as strong, or will remain as strong, as it is among some of us who are much more active in this matter.
That is not to say that one should not make the case with a great deal of strength, and the Minister has not argued to make the case rather stronger. But even though he has not done so, I have to tell hon. Members that I still would not advise the House to oppose the Motion—even though the case has been made no more strongly than it has been made—because of the other reasons which I have deployed; because of the damage which I think it would do to N.A.T.O.; because of the damage that it would do to the possibility of integration, to logistics, to supplies of forces and weapons to N.A.T.O., to which I attach so much importance, and because of the almost inescapable overtones of racial policy colouring our approach.
For all those reasons I say to the House—and obviously I say it especially to my hon. and right hon. Friends—that T feel convinced, we feel convinced, that the right course for us to pursue tonight is not to oppose the Order but to leave the responsibility for it where only it can lie, which is on the Government benches, and to watch very carefully how it works out.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has made a powerful and persuasive speech. He has pointed out the advantages of co-operation and the disadvantages of racial feeling and the other disadvantages to the democratic feeling in Germany today which may result from a rejection of this Order. I rather regret that he has shown something less than his usual political courage in advising his right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote for the Order.
The right hon. Member made the point at the beginning of the speech that very few hon. Members on this side of the House have attended consistently throughout the debate. I have my own apologies to make for, owing to another engagement, I was not able to be here all the


time. I think it fair to say, however, that the debate this evening lies not so much between the two sides of the House as between the two sections of the party opposite. Therefore, it was to be expected that the party opposite should attend in rather larger numbers than we on these benches.
The right hon. Member also made the point that he was very understanding of the disagreeable feelings which would be aroused by the sight of German uniform again in this country. I think that one must distinguish between these uniforms. The uniforms of the Nazis and the German Army in the last war were entirely different from those of the German Army today and aroused very different feelings among those who had to contend with them. Nowadays, those visiting Germany from time to time will have very clearly in their minds the great difference there is in the atmosphere compared with the atmosphere in the days before the war.
I have no doubt at all that those of us who were there before the war will recall with very great displeasure the feelings of anticipation and the fatal feeling that something desperate would happen, but I do not think that anyone going to Western Germany now can have those feelings, or believe anything but that those who are trying to build the German Army are trying to do so on democratic principles.
Several hon. Members have recalled in the debate that Western Germany today is the only one of the N.A.T.O. Powers which has devoted all its forces entirely to N.A.T.O. and made no reservations as other Powers, ourselves included. It is the only one which Chas submitted to every sort of inspection of its factories and forces in order to ensure that it abides by the terms of the treaties it has engaged in, particularly about A.B.C. weapons. I am personally of the opinion that many who visit Western Germany can also agree that the military feeling of the younger people in Germany today is almost nil. It is with the very greatest difficulty that they can be persuaded to join the forces.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is quite true. Only because we insist on having conscription in Germany are there any forces to come here for this training.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Member agrees with me and I am glad of that. The military feeling in Germany today is not by any means the feeling against which the hon. Member and his hon. Friends are still trying to direct themselves. That was the feeling of irredentism and Chauvinism which existed before the war. That argument is inescapable in the attitude of hon. Members who oppose the proper training of these troops. They have no reason to doubt the true democratic aspirations of the Western German people.
If we oppose this Order tonight we shall inflict a great personal wound upon the feelings of those who are trying to do their best to run the country in the democratic way in which it ought to be run and in which they wish it to be run. No one can doubt that the allies should be as well trained and as well equipped as possible. If this range ought to be provided to enable the German forces to be properly equipped and trained, then I do not see how we can argue against their using it.
I am reminded of a quotation by Polonius, who gave this advice to his son, Laertes, about his friends:
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;".
If they are our friends, we must treat them as such and attempt to see that their army, which I believe, is a more democratic army than any I have seen there in the past, is well equipped and well trained. It is clearly our duty to provide these facilities for the German forces, and I hope that we shall do so.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I rise as the Member for the constituency concerned, and I wish to associate myself with what I consider to be the admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I agree with every word he said, and I share many of his doubts, inhibitions and hesitations on the subject of our discussion. Indeed, I remember an occasion some years ago when my right hon. Friend and I tramped across a field of human ashes at Auschwitz and looked at piles of human hair and piles of children's shoes. I remember the way in which he was deeply moved, as I was. It was an


experience which will remain with me for the rest of my life, as I am sure it will remain with him.
Naturally, all who had that kind of experience or spent the best years of their lives dealing with the problems associated with German militarism have inhibitions ambout this subject. As the hon. Member for the constituency in which these Germans are likely to train, I will simply tell the House the general feeling of the people in the district. This is only my personal impression, I concede; I put it no higher than that.
First, there is no question at all of any hostility among the people in the Pembroke Dock-Pembroke Borough area to this proposal. It has been represented at various times that this stems from the fact that there is unemployment in the area. I think that I know my constituents better than that. They would in no way debase the coinage of their intellectual assessment of this situation. They have a long history of sturdy independence over the years, and they have even returned people like myself to the House of Commons. They are not likely to be bought or sold by any measures such as this. There is a genuine feeling in the district that bygones should be bygones.
We are in no position, any more than is my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, to judge the military merits of this proposal. It is for the Government to make their case for it, as the Minister of Defence conceded. All I can do on behalf of my constituents is to ask one or two questions which involve them and on which, because they have no experience of such a development as this, they naturally want some explanation.
First, what is the implication of the Visiting Forces Act on local civil liberties? What does this mean as regards police jurisdiction, the responsibilities of the local bench and the local inhabitants. Secondly, there are the technical problems mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). He spoke about firing in the area. What does this involve as regards safety limits and the area around the Castlemartin range? Thirdly, I am concerned about the position as regards claims for compensation. Perhaps the Minister when replying will give us a

brief summary of precedents in other areas so that we know how we will stand in our area.
Finally, there are one or two purely mechanical problems such as roads, transportation of the tanks from the landing stages, and so on. I see that the Minister for Welsh Affairs is present. Some of the roads leading to this tank range are very narrow. There have already been difficulties in the town of Pembroke in an area called Holy Land. Will this road be widened so that the tanks can get through without knocking down people's front gardens, and so on?
I now want to say something about the general feeling in the district and any opposition which exists there. I can only speak for the County of Pembroke. I read in the Press that on Saturday there was a demonstration 60 or 70 miles away at Swansea. The chief speaker at the demonstration said that he was not dismayed by the poor attendance. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was present at the demonstration. Speaking as an outsider, who may be able to see the matter more objectively than some Welshmen, I say that it would be unfair to the people of Wales to say, on the basis of Saturday's demonstration, that there is national uproar about this situation.

Mr. Abse: Does my hon. Friend think that the Welsh Council of Labour, representing as it does all the constituency parties and trade unions in Wales, is not in a position to make an assessment? Is he aware that this week the Council has in clear and unequivocal terms expressed its bitter opposition to any suggestion of these German forces coming to Wales?

Mr. Donnelly: I have not my hon. Friend's long experience of these matters. I well recall the day when he was put in gaol during the war when he was elected the Prime Minister of the Cairo Forces Parliament.

Mr. Abse: I am not ashamed of that.

Mr. Donnelly: I still dispute the validity of my hon. Friend's claim.

Mr. Abse: What is my hon. Friend disputing? Is he disputing the decision of the Regional Council? That is a fact. He must be aware of it, unless


he is completely out of touch with all opinion in Wales.

Mr. Donnelly: My hon. Friend is putting it a little high.

Mr. Abse: What is my hon. Friend doing?

Mr. Donnelly: I am trying to put it in proper perspective. I do not believe that the working men and women of Wales take the same attitude as my hon. Friend. The Welsh Regional Council may well be well advised to think again about this issue. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) seems heated.

Mr. S. Silverman: No, I am not.

Mr. Donnelly: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend has cooled.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend cannot rouse my temper.

Mr. Donnelly: I am delighted to hear it on this occasion.
I really do not believe—whether they are councils, whether it is the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) or anyone else—that the people of Wales as a whole are roused to a sense of outrage at this moment. That is the short point of my assessment. I may be wrong, and I shall be happy to be converted, but that is the assessment I give tonight.
Another point relevant to the whole discussion is the basic principle, not of whether or not we think this is an outrage, but of this particular association with German forces by Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Essington (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the background history of German rearmament. He knows it better than anyone else, but perhaps I may briefly remind the House of some of the incidents.
The issue originally arose out of the situation in 1950—the time of the Korean War. At that time, it was thought in Western Europe that there would be a Russian advance similar to that which had taken place in Korea. There was a feeling, generally, or panic in Western Europe, and especially in Western Germany. West German industrialists even went so far as to take advertising space in East German newspapers. West German policemen had to have the numbers removed from their uniforms. They were

reluctant to take action against Communists because they felt it was only a matter of days or even of hours before the Russians advanced. This is the reportable fact; I do not speak of whether or not it was valid. That was the situation at that time.
The West German Government approached the British Government and our associates in the Western Alliance and said that we should at least go as far as the East Germans had already gone in creating an armed police force. And do not let us ever forget that German rearmament began on the Eastern side of the border, not on the Western side.
That was the proposal that Ernest Bevin took to New York in September, 1950. He discussed it with the Americans, and Mr. Dean Acheson, then the American Secretary of State, insisted on a package deal. He recognised the panic in Western Europe and said that the Americans were ready to send troops to Western Europe but, as part of the package deal, he said that we must have a proper German Army; there must be German rearmament.
This was resisted by the British Government, the British Labour Government, and the French Government, but, in the face of the situation then, and in the face of the terms of a package deal on which the Americans insisted and which they said was not negotiable, the Governments could only reluctantly agree. Then the question arose whether, if there was German rearmament, it should take place with or without control. The situation developed that if we persistently turned down all systems of control, such as E.D.C., we would eventually have a German army without control, which is the last thing we would desire. That is the situation as it was then.
Having agreed to the principle of West German rearmament with controls—after the prolonged dreary debates that went on in E.D.C. and finally worked down to the Paris Agreement and the London Agreement of October, 1954—this present proposal is the logical corollary of what happened then, as several hon. Members have said.
The issue is whether we wish to see the existing German Army outside the Western Alliance, ostracised and in isolation, or wish it to be integrated with


the Western Alliance, as part of the whole fabric of the Western political sot-up. That is really the choice. This present proposal is a very small proposal in the big scheme of the Western arrangements.
A great deal of heat has been engendered here tonight, but this is, in fact, a very small parochial proposal, indeed, when we consider all the proposals of the Western Alliance. Many hon. Members have swallowed the camel and are now straining at the gnat. What we really have to face up to are the implications in this proposal.
One or two hon. Members have raised objections in the course of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) talked about German foreign policy and the recovery of certain lands East of the Oder and Neisse. I entirely agree with him. I would not support the movement of one German soldier to recover any of those lands. I am in favour of the recognition of the Oder-Neisse line and opposed to the recovery of those territories.
But does anyone really think that the arrival of 600 half-trained troops in Wales is really relevant to the wider issue? Then there is the question of provocation, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Rossendale, who suggested that it might represent an issue of provocation to the Russians. One must get this issue in balance. I would have thought, considering Mr. Khrushchev's psychology and recognising something of the magnitude of the demonstration of aircraft and arms in Russia a few days ago, that the arrival of 600 troops in Wales will not be a provocation.
Mr. Khrushchev is a realist and not a fathead. But some of the people who put forward these ideas are fatheads, and there is no other way of describing them. In fact, this proposal is for bringing the German troops closer to the British Armed Services and our arrangements in the Western Alliance. It is an interesting historical parallel that at the time of the Versailles Conference President Wilson, Mr. Lloyd George and M. Clemenceau insisted on a clause in that Treaty that the Germans should never be allowed to have foreign troops training in Germany. The reason for that insistence was that they considered

that it would give the Germans an advantage. It would enable German militarism to spread, German ideas to spread, and it would give Germany political and military influence if foreign troops were allowed to train in Germany.
This is exactly what we are being asked to consider now in Britain. It is a reversal of the whole proposal, and some hon. Gentlemen are suggesting that we should turn it down. It would be profoundly regrettable if these young Germans—many of whom were children at the time of the Nazi régime—should not have an opportunity of coming here, of looking at our way of life, even though they come in uniform. Of course, I would rather see them in civilian clothing, but let them come in uniform and then let them come again in civilian clothes, having a respect for our institutions and our way of life.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, I cannot comment on the military technicalities of what the Minister of Defence has brought forward. I can say, however, that as far as my constituents are concerned they have no hymn of hate in their hearts. I believe that they will welcome these young people on their merits.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) on his speech, which was couched in moderate language. I think that most hon. Members will agree with what he said. I did not agree with quite everything that was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), but one remark he made with which I heartily agree was that we should not condemn a whole race for the sins of their fathers.
The hon. Member for Pembroke observed that these young men whom it is suggested should come here to be trained in Wales can hardly be the same men who crashed through Poland with the Panzer divisions in 1939. They are the sons, at least, of the former generation, and if we are to condemn the sons why should we stop at them? Why should we not object to our men training alongside Frenchmen who are the great, great-grandsons of the Old Guard who fought our troops at Waterloo, or even the remote descendants of the Yankee troops who shot our troops at Bunker's Hill?
Put in that way, the whole argument becomes nonsense.
We cannot condemn in that fashion one generation for what another generation has done. To do so, and to make such a song and dance about this proposal, is to show a complete misunderstanding of the history and traditions of the British Army throughout the world. It has always been our tradition to recruit and train with those whom we have previously fought.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was himself a Gurkha officer in the Indian Army, as was one of my brothers. The Gurkha regiments were recruited from people who were never British subjects and those regiments were first formed from troops whom we had recently defeated. That was the rule in the Indian Army. It was exactly the same with the Mahratta and Sikh regiments. They were formed out of troops whom we had recently been fighting. We accepted them and trained them.
If we go back far enough we find that the Scottish regiments had the same sort of origin, because many of those who fought in the '45 Rebellion afterwards served in the British Army, and Scottish regiments played a notable part in subsequent wars. It was the sons of the men who, in the '45 Rebellion fought against the English Army, who played such a notable part in the Napoleonic wars.
I do not want to elaborate the point, but I think that people are making a very serious mistake if they wish to visit on the children the sins of the fathers, or think that there is anything peculiar in training with troops whose ancestors at some time or other fought against us. In fact one can go further than that. My uncle spent his youth during the Boer War chasing Jan Smuts, as he then was, who led a Boer Commando, and afterwards he served under Smuts in the First World War. There was nothing unusual at all in changes of that sort.
When one remembers that Western Germany is at present flooded with refugees from the East, that they are very short of land and that we are occupying a considerable amount of land in their country for training our own troops, it is not asking very much

of us that we should spare a little territory and some facilities to train a few of their troops who, with ours, are considered to be part of the same force in N.A.T.O. Too much has been made of the opposition to this proposal.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not regard the question which the House is to decide tonight as being unimportant. I agree that its importance does not rest exclusively on the 600 experimental trainee Germans who are the subject immediately of the Order. If that were all, I suppose that many of us in the context of present-day international politics would grin and bear it.
The importance of the question, as, I think, has emerged clearly from many of the speeches, lies in two wider questions. One is the background of the whole question of German rearmament, which, of course, is bound up with even wider questions of international relationships and common policy. The other is the Minister's declared intention, if this immediate experiment should succeed, to follow it with others.
Certain of my hon. Friends who take the same general point of view as I do are, I think, mistaken in attaching too much importance to the immediate admission of a handful of young Germans to be trained in South Wales. It is not that. It is the fact that if it goes through we shall have more and more and that if we are ever to resist it we must resist it tonight.
The other general question, the more important one, I think, is the whole background of German rearmament. This is not a trivial matter which we can afford to disregard and on which, without irresponsibility, we can abstain. It is a broad question of deep principle on which it is incumbent that each of us should make up his mind and vote, in the end, according to his conscientious judgment. Are we right in proceeding with German rearmament, in doing it in this way, in this context, in this country, or are we wrong?
I daresay that the House will be unanimous in agreeing with me in my next sentence. My own answer to the question is predictable. I think it is wrong morally, wrong politically and wrong practically to bring Germans in


uniform to this country for military training in order to take part with us in some contemplated war in Europe or in the world. To me—I say frankly that others may not see it in this way; I am giving only my own view—this is sheer blasphemy. It is an insult to the 40 million people who died in or as a result of the Second World War.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)—I am sorry he is not here—made the kind of speech that one cannot answer in debate. One could do justice to my right hon. Friend's speech only by having him in the witness box, on oath, subject to cross-examination. It would be very interesting to hear his answers to the innumerable contradictions and non sequiturs which he surrounded with so much superficial lucidity and reasonableness.

Mr. G. Wilson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question?

Mr. Silverman: If it must be asked, yes.

Mr. Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman object to training with Turks because the Turks wiped out the whole Armenian race in the First World War?

Mr. Silverman: I can only beg the hon. Gentleman to have a little patience with me. Like other hon. Members, I can make only one point at a time and utter one sentence at a time. It is quite impossible at the beginning of a speech, in the first minute, to deal with the whole case.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman said that he objected to Germans—

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Gentleman will possess himself in patience for a little while, he may find it unnecessary to ask the question. If he still feels it necessary to repeat it later, I shall be delighted to answer. The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in making me forget the point I wished to make.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend had his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper in the witness box, which would be a very expensive business.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for Truro has done what the learned judge

so often does in cases where his sympathies are on one side or the other—he has intervened to protect the witness. Perhaps I had better leave my right hon. Friend's argument alone. However, I will deal with one point, because I think that it demands an answer.
I do not deny that my feelings are involved here. I daresay that the feelings of many hon. Members are involved. Every hon. Member has said that his feelings are involved, and I believe that. However, I think that it will be understood if I say that there is no hon. Member who has greater reason to find his emotions involved than I have, although there are many who have as much reason. Yet the emotion which I feel is not a racial emotion. The hon. Gentleman served with me in the House during the war. So did my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who has blown in, blown off and blown out. He will know the attitude that I took to anti-German racialism during the war, when it was much harder to plead for tolerance than it is today.
A great many right hon. and hon. Members who are preaching sermons to me today about how wrong it is to carry hatred beyond the grave were calling me a pro-German during the war because I was begging them to draw the distinction which T have always drawn and which they are only just beginning to draw between Germans as such and Nazis and Fascists. I had a very hard time of it. With a handful of others, I pleaded throughout the war. "State your terms now. Do not wait until the end of the war until you have complete anarchy in Europe and the Allies who are fighting together for their lives against German militarism and Fascism have time to fall out about it."
When it came nearer to the end of the war when we had this absurd doctrine, of which everyone is now ashamed, of unconditional surrender—"Do not recognise any German Government. Do not make peace with the Germans. Occupy them for forty years"—when the Americans were saying, "Split them up. Never let them unite again. Pastoralise them. Destroy all their industries"—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: "The best Germans are dead Germans".

Mr. Silverman: Hon. and right hon. Members opposite did not afford me much assistance in those days, and it does not really lie in their mouths to preach sermons to me about not being anti-German.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper was not a Member of the House at that time, but he was a Member of the Labour Party. He used to go to the annual conferences of the Labour Party. He used to sit next to me at those conferences. I cannot remember if he had a single word to say in those days which would have helped those of us who were trying so hard to prevent the situation as it developed.
It is not only a question of six million of my own people. I only know about that, although I saw some of it. Early in April, 1945, when Eisenhower, leading the American Forces in Europe, had relieved Buchenwald, sent an invitation to Mr. Speaker, your predecessor, Sir—no, last but one—inviting a Parliamentary delegation to go out and to look at Buchenwald before it disappeared into history and before the opportunity arose for people to say, "This is only atrocity-mongering. This is only the result of anti-German racialism". We went. Some of those who saw it are still in the House with me—my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). On the other side of the House, I do not think there is anyone left. I shall not forget it. I remember going to the gates and seeing a lorry on one side of the gates and another lorry on the other side piled so high with human corpses that they would not stay on, dropping off, littered about, and the pitiful dregs of humanity inside.
When I came back, I was asked, "Does not this cure you? Do you not hate the Germans now? Will you not alter your views about drawing distinctions between Germans and Nazis?" It seemed to me that there was only one possible answer to that, because Eisenhower had done one thing of great wisdom. Goethe's Weimar is only four miles from Buchenwald and he made the inhabitants of Weimar walk the four miles so that they could walk through the Buchenwald camp and see what had been done by their rulers in their name.
I looked at the German faces. They did not like it any more than I liked it. When I was asked, "What do you think about it? Won't you be anti-German now?" When I came back, I said, "Less than ever, because it seems to me that before you can judge a man you must be able to answer very honestly what you would have done if you were in his place."
If I had been a German citizen in Weimar, four miles from Buchenwald, perhaps I would not have known what was going on, in which case I had no responsibility, although more likely I would know. I do not see how I could have failed to know. But suppose I knew that, and I knew also that if I raised my little finger in protest not merely would I be there myself the next morning but my wife would be there, my baby would be there, my friends and all my relations would be there. Unless I am sure that in those circumstances I would nevertheless have protested, I have no right to complain that the Germans did not protest.
I hope that while this controversy about German rearmament goes on, nobody will ever again degrade and bedevil it by this utterly unjustified and cheap sneer about anti-racialism. My conscience is clear about anti-racialism. I wish that everybody else's was as clear.
If anti-racialism is not the reason, what is the reason? People do not realise that the right kind of Germans were always the first and worst victims of the wrong type of Germans. The tragedy of Europe arises out of the tragedy of Germany that ever since Bismarck's day the control of German destinies has been in the hands of the wrong Germans.
What has been the result? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for—it used to be Epping—[An HON. MEMBER: "Woodford."] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—[Laughter.] Yes, memory is so short. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford once described the century in which we are living as "this terrible twentieth century". He did not know the half of it. There are forty years of this terrible twentieth century to happen yet. It may be that the terrors between 1914 and


1945 are only a small, insignificant part of what Europe and the world may yet have to suffer, unless we learn wisdom from the terrors of this terrible twentieth century.
And what is at the heart of it? Germany is at the heart of it, by geography, by history, by economic necessity. And what is the problem of European peace and, therefore, I am not afraid to add, of world peace? It is the problem of being able to do justice to a united Germany without involving all the passions and miseries and fears of all Germany's neighbours and the rest of the world.
Potsdam is a dirty word—except, of course, when we are defending our rights in Berlin; but it is a dirty word everywhere else. But was the Potsdam Agreement so wrong? What, in the end, did we agree upon at Potsdam, we and the Americans and the French and the Russians, all of us in this House—nobody ever said a word against it at the time? What was the basis of the Potsdam Agreement on which the successful Allies succeeded in agreeing about in regard to Germany? In spite of unconditional surrender, in spite of the conflict of interests, in spite of the conflict of ideas, in spite of the fears and suspicions of what might happen in the future, they were not so unstatesmanlike. They said, "Germany must be united, but must be united in such a way that never again will the Germans be capable of being the cause of terror to their neighbours." Therefore it was said, "Unite Germany; have free elections; but no arms, and no military or political entanglements with other nations. Demilitarisation and neutralisation. And then be as united as you like."

Mr. Kershaw: Who is to keep them so? How do we keep a united Germany demilitarised?

Mr. John Rankin: How do we keep them under control now?

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). It really takes my argument a little out of turn. I was coming to deal with that, but I will deal with it now. There was no difficulty about keeping it so. None at all. If the Germans are armed today to any extent it is because we forced

arms into their reluctant hands. We forced rearmament upon the Germans. They did not want it.
There were my hon. and right hon. Friends with their easy shibboleths about our democratic friends in Germany and should we not stand by the Social Democrats. Why did they not stand by them in the days when we were arguing about E.D.C. and the Brussels Treaty? Did the German trade unionists want German rearmament? Did the German Social Democrats want German rearmament? Did the German Liberals want German rearmament? Did the German man in the street want German rearmament? Of course they did not.
I remember those days. I went as an invited guest to a convention in Paris when the French National Assembly was to debate these treaties. I was asked to say a word, and I said a word against German rearmament? The National Executive Committee of my party wrote me an indignant protest about going to France to persuade French Socialists to vote against German rearmament. And in the very week when I went to Paris to do that Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, the Treasurer of the party, went to Germany to try to persuade German Social Democrats to change their minds and accept rearmament.

Mr. Kershaw: East Germany rearmed quickly after the war. What answer would the hon. Member make to that?

Mr. Silverman: I do not know why the hon. Member asks me that question. I am sure that he is not one of those people who think that I am drawing a distinction between West Germany and East Germany. I am not. I am talking about Germany. It is clear that if the West had arms the East would have them, and if the East had them the West would have them. All I say is that Potsdam agreed that none should have them, and I say that that was a perfectly practicable policy. We ran away from it and deserted it.

Mr. Kershaw: It was broken by the East as soon as the Treaty was signed.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Speaker would soon pull me up if I tried now to go back into that old history. I am far from saying that all the faults were on one side. Of course they were not. The whole tragedy arose out of the breakup


of the understanding that had been reached at Potsdam, and it is perfectly true that as soon as suspicion was sown and the evil seed flowered it was obvious that the thing would not last.
If now we create a Western Germany which is armed, which is an integrated ally in N.A.T.O., one of the two principal armed blocs, and if we insist, as I am afraid the Government are still insisting, that we are still in favour of uniting Germany but are now against the agreed conditions on which alone a united Germany is possible, we are following a course which can only lead to catastrophe. It seems to me that this Order is wrong because it carries this wrong policy one stride further to disaster. Of course it may be said, "You agreed in 1954", and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said that this is the only logical decision from that. That was the camel and this is merely the gnat. I am not one of those who swallowed the camel. Of course that may be said, but that is a very silly analogy. It is like saying to a man who has fallen out of the window on the twelfth floor that if he does nothing about it the logical result is that he will break his neck on the pavement and that therefore it would be wholly unreasonable for him to attempt to stop himself half-way. Because we have done a damned silly thing in 1954, it does not mean that in 1961 we have to take every logical consequence. It is better to be illogical and alive.

Mr. Donnelly: How would my hon. Friend stop between the twelfth floor and the pavement?

Mr. S. Silverman: There are ways. [Laughter.] There are windows, there are ropes and there are ladders. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend does not mean to be quite so semantic in his argument. He knows perfectly well that we are not obliged tonight to take this further step, and I am saying that we should not do so.
A number of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said that they will not vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper said, "I am not going to take any responsibility." To my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington I would say, if he were here, that I agree

with him in wanting to get rid of the Government, but disagree with him in thinking that the best way of getting rid of the Government is not to oppose them. It seems to me, in my innocence, that is a complete non sequitur. I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood), with whom I agree on most things, but may I say to him, with the greatest respect and affection, that this issue will not be decided at the annual conference of the Labour Party in Blackpool next October. It will be resolved and settled here tonight, when this debate is finished. If he wants to influence the result he had better not wait for the conference at Blackpool.
Then there is my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. He wants to wash his hands of it; he said so. He wants to take no responsibility. The deputy Leader of the alternative Government wants to take no responsibility. He wants to abstain, and he advised Members on this side to abstain. Why does he limit his advice to Members on this side? Why should not we all abstain? There is no Member of the House on either side who knows more about it than my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. If that is his reason for washing his hands of responsibility and not voting, then let none of us vote.
But, of course, he did not mean that. What he meant was: "This is an unpopular thing. Let the Government take the onus and the blame of passing it through and let me have the best of both worlds so that nobody will be able to say that I agreed with it and no one will be able to say that I opposed it". That is not practical politics.
In so far as they mean it, I am ready to do my right hon. and hon. Friends the same incalculable service as I rendered them in 1954. I got no medals for it in those days. I expect no medals for it tonight either. But in 1954 they also decided that they would abstain from voting on the Motion approving of the Paris Treaty. If nobody had done anything about it, their decision would have been frustrated. Mr. Speaker would have put the Question from the Chair. When he said "As many as are of that opinion say 'Aye'", all those on the other side would have said "Aye";


when he said "To the contrary, 'No'", nobody would have said "No". The Motion would have been carried nemine contradicente—with no opposing voice.
That was not what my hon. and right hon. Friends wanted. I do not know why they blame me for having come to their rescue, but I came to their rescue by calling a Division. I said "No", and so did some of my hon. Friends, and so there was a Division from which the bulk of my hon. Friends were able to abstain as they had previously decided to do. But if no Division had been called, there would have been nothing to abstain from; the resolution would have been carried unanimously, and my right hon. and hon. Friends would not have been able to stump the country as they have done ever since saying, "We never voted for German rearmament."
I propose to do my right hon. and hon. Friends the same service tonight. Since they have decided that for this side of the House, or the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House, the proper thing to do is to abstain, I shall see to it so far as I am able, with your approval, Mr. Speaker, that there is a Division, so that those who are in favour of this can stand up and be counted and those who are against it can stand up and be counted and those who do not know and who think that the responsibility is not theirs and that they need not decide can sit on whatever they do sit on and abstain.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I do not propose to delay the House for more than a very few moments, I speak tonight with a very heavy heart. I speak not only on behalf of myself, but on behalf. I am sure, of thousands of my constituents.
I do not want to repeat the arguments which were so ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I merely want to say to the House, quite candidly, as a Jew, that I think that this Order, which makes possible the training of German troops in this country, is a disgraceful and disgusting one. It is an insult not only to the 6 million victims to whom tiny hon. Friend referred, but to the

countless others who were killed as a result of the war.
I know that it may be said that this is an anti-racial argument, but I plead, in support of it, the argument rightly used by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. I think that I can sum it up in a very few words.

Mr. E. Partridge: In one word—"hatred".

Mr. Weitzman: Shall we never learn by our mistakes? Shall we never know where the truth lies? Shall we always go on fostering and rearing what is a real danger to this country, to ourselves? I want to take the opportunity of protesting as strongly as I can against the Order. It has been said that hon. Members who desire to do so can abstain from voting. Frankly, I do not take that view.
My view is that I should not be able to face my constituents, I should not keep faith with my conscience, unless I protested in the strongest possible fashion against the making of this Order and I therefore propose to vote against the Motion—much as I believe in the unity of my party and much as I hope that my party will, as quickly as it can, turn out those Members who sit opposite and become an efficient Government for the sake of this country. But I say that I could not keep faith with my conscience if I did anything but protest in the strongest possible fashion against the making of this Order.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: None of us wishes to delay the House, but some things have been said to which I think that a reply should be made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) did not recollect what did happen to Karl Liebnecht who was at the International Socialist Conference in Brussels in 1914. Karl Liebnecht went back to the Reichstag to vote against armaments. He went back to rally the German Socialists against the war policy, as did Jean Jaurés, who went back to France.
The one hope of peace at that moment, when the passions of pseudo-patriotism which were being stirred up in every country, the last hope of peace, was that the people in the Socialist International brotherhood could call upon


the working man to be prepared for the use of the strike weapon against war. Karl Liebnecht—no one has accused him of lack of courage—was shot down—

Mr. Harold Davies: So was Keir Hardie.

Mr. Hale: Well, Jaurés was actually murdered by the bullet of a half-witted youth in the Rue Croissant, in Paris.
That was our chance. That was our hope. It is when I recall that and then listen to one of the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that I know that my position is now impossible. My right hon. Friend says, "You swallowed it before." I did not vote with my hon. Friend the Member far Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in 1954. I wish that I had. I might have thought better of myself if I had. Every time we make sacrifices to this appeal for party monolithic loyalty it is used as an argument for doing it again. Every time that the right hon. Member for Easington makes this argument that we should all stand together and abide by the party majority, every time I go home feeling that I have failed myself and my party, it is used against me. Somebody says, "Well, if you did not vote that time, how can you vote this?"
There must be a limit to it. My right hon. Friend used some words which I think I have enough respect for him to feel that he may regret when he reads them tomorrow. I refer to his remarks about racial antagonism in this matter. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) will mind my quoting a casual remark which he made to me a month or so ago. He said, "I was looking through the debates, Leslie, and you were the first man after the war to get up and make a speech saying that the Germans must be received back as soon as possible into the comity of nations".
In 1947, my friend the late "Kim" Mackay, then a Member of Parliament for Hull, and I organised a meeting of Parliamentarians at The Hague to which we invited former Members of the Reichstag although, at the time, there were no official German Members of Parliament. I had at that time a German M.P. as my

guest and he said, "Why did you let us down? Why did you not vote against German rearmament? Why did you force us into the position in which we have to rearm?" People have said later that now it is more difficult than it was then, that they cannot get up and make speeches in the Reichstag because the volume of opinion has grown so much.

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Suicide Bill [Lords] exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Watkinson.]

VISITING FORCES (APPLICATION OF LAW)

Question again proposed,
That the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

Mr. Hale: Even if we were to forget that we have to deal with another form of suicide before the night is out, I would not want to delay the House much longer.
There is no racial issue about this and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, on reflection, will wish that he did not say that. We have just been giving a demonstrative reception to a Russian Communist. Most hon. Members seem to think that Mr. Khrushchev is the major fear on the political horizon. I should hardly think that it could be disputed by the majority of this House that we are anti-Communist, but we have never extended that to individuals, and I hope we never shall.
I ask the House to judge what has happened. Every argument that has been used in favour of the Motion tonight is really an argument against it. We were told by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) that we must not practise discrimination, but every amendment of the Brussels Treaty has been a discrimination against Germany. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said in what, even for him, was a singularly brilliant speech, we have practised progressive discrimination against them from Potsdam


onwards. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill was asked: would he allow them to have the hydrogen bomb? He said that he would not, and that is a discrimination.
We have been through all this before. Let us have no misunderstanding about this. We were going through it long before Hitler was on the horizon. We were going through it at the time of the death of Walter Rathenau and we were going through it at the time of death of Rosa Luxembourg. History has a habit of repeating itself rather more often than one would wish.
In 1953, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House that the break-up of the Krupp empire was now agreed, that it was the law of the Bonn Parliament, had been completely agreed, and that we need not worry any more about it. Today, Krupp has a turnover of £452 million a year in Germany and is controlling the most powerful industry in Western Germany. While Alfred Krupp is dominating German steel, and will dominate the Common Market, I am frightened about German arms.
That is why, though it may be that this vote is symbolic. I certainly shall vote. I do not believe that the state of public opinion in this country today welcomes this sort of thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne made the point which I need not repeat, but it arose rather remarkably from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), who started by saying. "What are you worrying about, 600 men coming to practise in Wales?" It was rather like Lord Halifax's hunting trip before the war—no great harm would be done. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke asked if there was to be a widening of the roads. The question asked was whether the roads could be widened. Goodness knows how many million pounds it will cost to have the roads widened for manœuvring tanks all over Pembroke. But surely we are not having this debate, which has moved many hon. Members very deeply, surely we are not having questions asked about widening the roads, if all that is contemplated is a visit of a few weeks by 600 young tank gunners for their earliest, preliminary training, which, in any event, could have taken place on the Continent.
Or does it mean that in a few months' time the Government will make another

statement and my right hon. Friend will say, "We accepted it last time. We did not vote against it. We all abstained. We let it through nemine contradicente. Therefore, nobody can argue against it, because it is a logical continuation—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill will certainly say this—of the first Order." If we have them in Pembroke, why not in Oldham? Well, why not?
This is the last ditch. I remember a paper written by one of my hon. Friends whom I most loved and whom I most miss—the former Member for Gravesend. We asked him once to do a paper on last ditches. He pointed out that in the last three years we had occupied about eight last ditches and had retired from them all. But there must be a point at which one can occupy a last ditch in a Division on one occasion at least. I believe that the Labour Party will be strengthened in the country by the fact that some of us feel that we cannot allow this Order to pass without expressing, by our vote, our complete and absolute dissent.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I oppose the Motion, not because I have any hatred of the Germans, but because I believe that the fact that we are opposing the Motion will be welcome to many people in Germany who will be glad to know that in this country there is a minority who are doing their utmost to prevent Germany from being embroiled in another war.
I am rather older than many hon. Members, and I have seen great changes in the attitude of public opinion in this country towards the German people. I remember the First World War, when Keir Hardie was howled down on 6th August, 1914, because he dared to say that the Germans were people very much like ourselves and that they were not the cause of the war. In the First World War, among others who opposed it, I was frequently accused of being pro-German. I remember attending a tribunal which had the duty of exempting us, or refusing to exempt us, from Army service, and I remember having to put up a case against the queries of people who wanted to get us into the Army.
When all the country was inflamed by the stories of German atrocities in Belgium and Northern France, the usual question which was asked was, "Would you allow your sister or your mother to be raped by a German?" I do not know whether anyone will ask that question in Pembrokeshire today. I gather from the mood of the House that hon. Members regard the Germans as intelligent, civilised people with whom we should live on terms of friendship and against whom we should harbour no ill will. I subscribe to the view that we cannot bring an indictment against a nation, in the famous words of Burke, and should not harbour in our minds racial hatred or enmity to nations because of actions done during the war.
It is true that the Germans did terrible things to the Jews, to the Russians, to ourselves, and to others during the war. But the Germans say to Englishmen today, "Yes, but what did you do to Dresden?" We bombed and burned alive 100,000 Germans in Dresden when the fighting was practically over. If we wished to go back into the past, we should find that in times of war feeling is roused, propaganda whips up passions, and we go through emotions which in the calm perspective of history are better forgotten.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) recalled the Battle of Waterloo, at which we fought side by side with the Germans. Anyone wishing to have an interesting sidelight on present-day emotions to history should take foreigners through the Royal Gallery here. I took a party of school children from West Berlin through the Royal Gallery a week ago. They recognised Blucher. They said, "You only won the Battle of Waterloo because the Germans were there to help." The Germans were our allies. The next day I took a party of young Russians from the Exhibition around. I said, "Yesterday the Germans were here. They said that they won the Battle of Waterloo". The Russians said, "We won the Battle of Waterloo". I said, "The Russians were not at the Battle of Waterloo". They said, "The Russians destroyed the Army of Napoleon when Napoleon invaded Russia".
While we are supposed to have friendly feelings towards the Germans,

which is a good international sentiment, why should we hate the Russians? I ask those hon. Members who talk about forgetting the past and forgiving our enemies this question. Why should not we show the same human charity towards those who were our allies and suffered with us during the last war?

Mr. John Hynd: And forget the present?

Mr. Hughes: I am dealing with the present. I want to interpret the past and try to get at the future in terms of the past and the present. I want the same feeling of forgiveness as we show to our enemies shown to our old friends. I do not want a feeling of racial animosity towards any nation, because no nation has anything to gain by preparing for war or exercising for war on the plains of Pembrokeshire or anywhere else.
When I came to the House of Commons in 1946—after the war—I found that one of the biggest opponents of the Germans and the man who seemed to hate the Germans most in the House of Commons was Mr. Ernest Bevin. After the war I went to Germany and returned to this country with a memorandum from the German trade unionists who were objecting to their coal mines and oil and steel plants in the Ruhr being shut down. I remember putting Questions to Mr. Ernest Bevin. He said then, "I can never forget what the Germans did to my constituency". Unfortunately, those memories exist today. There are millions of people in this country who, because of emotion or sentiment cannot take an objective point of view, because in nearly every sizeable town in this country there are war memorials to sons, fathers and grandfathers who died in two world wars fought against the Germans.
I can take a dispassionate, philosophical, international outlook on this issue, but among a very large number of people who cannot there will tomorrow be a great feeling of thankfulness that some of us are prepared to defy the party Whips, as we have done before, to express this sentiment in the place in which it should be expressed. I believe in unity, of course, but not the kind of unity that makes principle subservient to political expediency. Therefore, I must vote against this Order, knowing


that by so doing I am voting for my constituents and for a general sentiment.
What will these Germans do? They will parade to and fro in their tanks, and photographs will be taken of German Panzers in the fields and lanes of South Wales. These pictures will be reproduced all over Europe, all over the world. The West will publish them as propaganda to show that the feeling of hatred against the Germans has gone, and the Russians and the Eastern world will publish them as propaganda to show that we are preparing for the next war. Does anyone think that that will relieve the present international tension?
It is not only the Germans of whom we must think. What about Czechoslovakia? What about Poland and those other countries who hate the emergence of Russian militarism, too? Of course they hate it. I also have some sympathy for the young Germans who are being brought here. They are conscripts, dragged into military service because Western Germany could not raise an army in any other way. Of course, there are minor difficulties as well. Just fancy them being stationed in Pembrokeshire and being represented by the present hon. Member for that division.
I believe that if it accepts this Order the House will do something that is repulsive to a very large number of people, and will take a step that will help to increase international tension rather than ease it. We care so much for the Germans, but a fortnight ago, at Question Time, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would give a guarantee that this country would never again bomb Berlin. That was a splendid opportunity to show sympathy with the West Germans—and, if a bomb drops, one cannot dissociate East Berlin from West Berlin. What was the answer? I was told that the Government would not give such an assurance because they did not give unilateral undertakings—

Sir Thomas Moore: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he is arguing for or against this Order?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Baronet is without his usual perspicacity. He should realise that, at any rate, I am not on the same side as he is.
I am arguing against this Order because it is not in the interests of the German people or of the people of Berlin. I have been in West Berlin a good deal since the war and I have watched with great interest Berlin rising from the ashes and debris to become a city in which there exists some hope

Mr. G. Wilson: Which half?

Mr. Hughes: I have been in both halves of Berlin.

Mr. Wilson: I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was saying that only half had risen from the ashes.

Mr. Hughes: if the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) had been to Berlin since the war—

Mr. Wilson: I was there last week.

Mr. Hughes: I am arguing that the people of Berlin have nothing to gain by a build-up of armed forces under the auspices of N.A.T.O., and that whatever happens if there is a clash in Berlin the people there will suffer, just as they have suffered before. I do not see any hope at all in this build-up under N.A.T.O. I was opposed to N.A.T.O. as I was opposed to the rearming of Germany, and I have gone into the Division Lobbies against both subjects on previous occasions.
As I say, I see no hope in building up the forces of N.A.T.O. because all one does by doing so is to intensify the arms race and the most important task at the moment is to do something to stop the arms race. By associating with this build-up of armed forces, instead of pursuing the path of disarmament, we are neither helping the Germans nor anyone else.
Although this debate has been badly attended there will be people in Britain who will be profoundly grateful to the minority in this House who have stated the case against this Order.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Step by step this Government are removing every restriction on German rearmament. It is unpleasantly reminiscent of the years 1933–39 when the Conservative Government of Mr. Chamberlain gave every encouragement to the rearmament of Hitler Germany.
Let me inform hon. Gentlemen opposite of the recent steps. First of all permission was given to double the size of German destroyers. The intention is that they should accommodate missiles and that those missiles will have nuclear warheads. Then there has been the giving to Germany of the Mace and Matador, each capable of delivering a nuclear warhead 900 miles to the east or west. We have put in charge of the N.A.T.O. Permanent Committee in Washington Heusinger, who was one of Hitler's top-brass, and in charge of British land forces in Europe von Speidel, who was equally guilty of the crimes committed during the last war.
And now tonight the Minister proposes that German troops should be brought to this country. I am not against the German people. I have visited both East and West Germany, and I know that the German people want war no more than we do. I do not blame them. I blame this Government and the American Government for forcing weapons into their hands. As I say, I am not blaming the German people, but I blame, to a certain extent, the German militarists. Hon. Members will remember the book written after the First World War, The Kaiser goes, the generals remain. The same book could be written today. Hitler goes but the generals remain. The top 140 officers in the German Army today all served as officers in Hitler's Wehrmacht.
Tonight, we are discussing the legal position of German troops coming to this country. But we all know that this will be the last opportunity that hon. Members will have of voicing their opposition to the coming of German troops to our country, certainly before November and possibly for all time. Indeed, the Minister himself, when he opened the debate, made it clear that he was discussing not merely the legal question, but the coming of the troops themselves.
I shall speak for only five minutes, and it will take me less than that to state the grounds of my opposition to the coming of German troops. I do so because I believe that the intensification of the arms race both by the American and Russian blocs is taking us into the third World War. I believe that neither the American nor the Russian Government want war, but are both so

frightened of the other that they are saying, "We can only negotiate through a position of strength." I believe that the way out is for Britain to say, along with the other neutral countries, "We want peace, friendship and trade with both America and Russia, but we are prepared to fight for neither of them."

Mr. Dudley Williams: That is straight from Moscow.

Mr. Allaun: The opposition to what I believe the Government are doing is based mainly on that ground, but there are additional objectionable features in what is proposed. The Minister has not yet denied the possibility that these troops, whilst they may be young conscripts, will be officered by former Nazi officers. Nor has he denied the possibility that they will be trained in the use of nuclear weapons. Surely there must be among the large number of Conservative Members some Members, or even one, prepared to say. "I am opposed to this." We on this side of the House have our divisions, but are hon. Members opposite so completely united? If so, I say to hon. Members opposite: face your own constituents and say that there is not one of you who is prepared to oppose this point of view. Surely, as Aneurin Bevan once said, this is the uniformity of the graveyard.
Why are the troops coming? A few days ago the Minister said that they were coming because the place selected is a suitable range. It has been said that this is a very ordinary and elementary range, and today the Minister has told us that the area will be something like eight square miles. Surely nobody is trying to kid us that they cannot find this sort of very ordinary and elementary tank range in Germany.
The Minister knows in his heart that that is not the real reason. The real reason for bringing German troops to our country is to condition the British people to accepting much worse. This is the thin end of the wedge. Indeed, the Minister himself has said that if there is not great opposition to this, more will come. But it is not only a question of tank training. These Germans are going to be trained in the use of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Watkinson: I must make plain that I said in my opening speech that


there was no question at all of any training on this range in anything but ordinary tank training and ordinary conventional weapons.

Mr. Allaun: If I may say so, that is a very weak point. Nobody is suggesting that they will be trained in the use of nuclear weapons at Castlemartin. It will be done at some other place. If the German troops are not to be so trained, and if the Minister is determined that they will not be, why not say so?
I maintain that the bringing of these German troops here is to rub the noses of the British people in the mess of German rearmament with nuclear weapons.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Moscow will not like that.

Mr. Allaun: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the tactics of McCarthy—

Sir Leslie Plummer: Let the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) get to his feet to say it.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I said that Moscow will not thank the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) for that.

Mr. Allaun: I did not hear that interruption, but I did hear what the hon. Member said earlier. I maintain that McCarthy tactics to smear the ideas of people one does not agree with are con-

trary to the traditions of the House of Commons.
The purpose of bringing these German troops here—it is not, as some have suggested, a trivial matter—is to commit us more deeply in the present entanglement. I am opposed to the arms race, to the building up of armed forces in both East and West. That is why I oppose the deeper commitment we are asked to take this evening.
The excuse given is that it is good to integrate the German forces in N.A.T.O. The Minister know from the numbers of divisions in existence now that Germany is rapidly becoming the greatest military power in Western Europe. We are to integrate Western Germany by making her the master military power.
During this summer, there has been a series of trade union conferences. With one exception, they have all, I believe, overwhelmingly voted against the acceptance of German troops in our country. The Welsh Regional Council of Labour is opposed to it. Certainly, my constituency party is bitterly opposed to it. I believe that there are within the Conservative Party voters who are opposed to it, and they will wonder why some of their Members did not rise to oppose it in the House of Commons. The step we are asked to take is completely wrong. It is the thin end of the wedge of worse things to come.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: For years now, we have watched the gradual erosion of opposition to the growing militarisation of the whole of Western Europe. All sorts of excuses are made. History repeats itself. We see ourselves, every twenty years, making the friends of the last war the enemies of the next. Casuistry, logic of a kind—if it can be called that—and all manner of arguments are offered.
We ask for evidence of opposition on the benches opposite. Some of us still remember how the Tories treated the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when he alone on those benches accused them of supporting the Anglo-German Fellowship and the build-up of Germany before the war. [Interruption.] We cannot expect anything else from that type of monolithic party as it is now. It has lost its guts. It has lost its grit. It is giving a completely amoral lead economically, socially and militarily to the world. Hon. Members opposite have not even the courage to criticise the mistakes of the United States Government but follow them as sycophantically as ever. [Laughter.] I have watched that group of hon. Members opposite from whom the laughter comes. Some of them, with all their scoffing about Red Russia, are only too glad to dip their greasy fingers in the lucrative pocket of East-West trade. It just shows how some of them are completely lying about the whole situation. It is just a facade. Their laughter is the laughter not of sincerity, but of hypocrisy, like the crackle of thorns under foot.
The Anglo-German Fellowship individual who shouted "Hatred" across the Floor a few moments ago is building up the hope like some silly little person that the German forces will resist the Red hordes of Communism. What guarantee has anyone of the way the Germans will move? They will move the way that suits themselves. We are building up Germany, as the Daily Mail pointed out the other day, so that 40 per cent. of the people in the forces are German and 100 per cent. of the naval forces, and an air force that will be six times stronger than ours. Then, the Government tell us that to bring in 600

troops to my little country will defend the world. [Interruption.] I am sick of the hypocrisy of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. Not one of them has the guts to vote against it.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Or to speak.

Mr. Davies: Let hon. Members opposite come into the Lobby with us tonight if they want to demonstrate their opposition.
We know these silly little arguments that the Press puts forward—that this will create employment. What a pathetic confession by the Tory Party who said, "You have never had it so good." The only way they are bringing a little bit of work to Wales is by bringing in German troops. Now, they are asking us to widen the roads so that they can bring them in. What idiocy this is. Cannot the British people see through it? What protection will it afford us? The Germans will not thank us for this.
I remember Ollenauer being in tears. I was over in Germany when we forced rearmament on the German people against their will. Millions of the German people do not want it today. I remember being at the conference of the French Socialist Party in the village of Puteaux outside Paris, when the Socialist Party of France said that because England had voted for the rearmament of the Germans, they must do the same. There comes a time when somebody has to take a decision and put a stop to it. [Interruption.] We are unleashing the dogs of war and crying havoc all the time.
Look at hon. Members opposite. They were laughing at the right hon. Member for Woodford before the war. They were laughing at some of the prophecies from this side of the House as we tried to stem the tide to war.

Sir Peter Agnew: Sir Peter Agnew (Worcestershire, South) rose—

Mr. Davies: I am not giving way. If it is getting under your skin, I cannot help it. The real thing today is that if we want to unite our people and if we want to stem the tide to war, we want a Government that at least will do something constructive. The constructive thing in Germany would be to try to


go back to the disengagement proposal and to get a non-nuclear zone.
Our next step will be to agree to the nuclear rearmament of Germany. We will be asked to swallow that one. What use is a tank in modern war, when one bomb can obliterate an island? Is it because we sold a few tank guns that we want them to try them over here? What was the price of bringing the troops over? Is it a try-out? Our people in Britain were very kind to the German troops when they were prisoners of war. No hatred was shown. Millions of people treated them well. We had them on the farms in England and Scotland, because once we saw the man without the gun we liked him. We welcome him in Wales to our eisteddfod.
He can come with his song and his music and his culture—and the best German culture is some of the best in the world—and we shall welcome him. That is what we want. But I am not going out of this House tonight feeling I had not the courage to go into the Lobby against the Motion, because I know in my heart and soul that if we go on with this we run on towards the Third World War, which will be the last war. There, on that side of the House, lies the power. I beg of you to use it. Is there not a leader amongst you? Is there not one of you who has the courage to protest about this? Some of us have led you before. In your heart of hearts some of you know that what has been said on this side is true.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member should address the Chair.

Mr. Davies: I apologise.
I finish with this. We must take some action to put a stop to this proposal. It can be done now. When some Members of my side of the House have the courage to go into the Lobby tonight they will create the great debate in this country. It has nothing to do with the childish accusation of hatred. I beg some Members opposite, if they will not come into the Lobby with us, at least to abstain. Because somewhere a stop must be put to this proposal. This is where it can begin. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, we cannot wait for

Blackpool. The decision is tonight. The decision is now. Is there no one on the other side who will stand up now and speak against the Motion? Is there not somewhere on that side at least one person with the courage to tell the truth that is in his or her heart, knowing this is wrong, and not the path to peace, and does not help one iota to solve the problem of peace in Europe?

10.42 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: The accusation is made against some of us who take the view that the arrival of German troops in this country is a betrayal of the things we fought for during the war that our opposition is an act of racialism. It comes pretty badly from people on the other side of the House who argued and fought for the disgraceful and destructive policy of unconditional surrender which carried on the war for another year.
Some of us on this side of the House believed that unconditional surrender was a policy of utter folly. We were not being racialist then. We were saying that we had to bring the holocaust to an end at the earliest possible moment. We were impressed by the argument that we cannot carry wars to a final conclusion through military methods and achieve for the world any sort of lasting peace. Who was right, the unconditional surrenderers, or those who took the view that a time had come in 1944 when we were not going to achieve anything by bombing Dresden and destroying Hamburg, and that what we should do was achieve a peace which would save at least one year of war, save possibly a million military lives, save perhaps a million or two million Jews from destruction. We were not racialist. We are not racialist now, though may I say that it is extremely difficult not to be racialist where Germans are concerned?
After all, in my lifetime the wickedest crimes which have been committed against humanity have been committed by the Germans in one form or another—the wickedest crimes, indefensible crimes: genocide on a scale which has been hitherto almost unknown in the history of the world since the days of Tamburlaine. It is mistaken and unfair to make that accusation against us who are shocked by the horrible things the


Germans have done and when the hope and aim of all of us should be to stop such things from happening again.
When we argue that the introduction of German troops into this country at this time is seen as an act of provocation—at a time when there should not be provocation—we are told we are escaping the logic of the situation. If we are going to argue along logical lines, why is not this party voting in favour of the Germans coming into this country? Those hon. Members of my party who are in favour of German rearmament should not discriminate, they should be arguing that the Germans ought to come here. Those of my party who are in favour of German rearmament should be arguing that the Germans ought to have nuclear weapons because they argue at the same time that the nuclear weapon is the great deterrent, that the Germans are members of N.A.T.O. and that as members of N.A.T.O. they should have this great deterrent which is contributing to the peace of the world because it is building up a defence against the Russians. They are not saying this at all.
They are saying that we will not take sides in this matter. Instead we will sit by and let the Government decide what is going to be done.
But the Labour Party cannot evade the responsibilities of history simply by sitting down and saying that we will not do anything. The appeal has been made that we should not take any action, in the interest of unity. I am bound to say that despite the fact that my own party has passed a resolution and sent it to the annual conference of the Labour Party protesting against the Germans coming into this country—I am bound by the standing orders of my party to abstain from voting tonight—I do not abstain from voting with any pleasure or with any sense of pride.
I take this last opportunity which I have of arguing that this proposed act of provocation will lead to very serious consequences. The West German Social Democratic Party, which has been put before us as the shining ideal which we should follow, has through its leader argued that the time has come for a rectification of the Oder-Neisse Line, So does Dr. Adenauer. What effect does this bipartisanship have on the people of

Europe, on the Poles in particular and on the Czechs and on the peoples of the other countries who have had to put up with German conquest and occupation?
What does Mr. Willy Brandt think he is doing when he argues, in the interest of winning an election, that he is even more revanchist on an issue like this than Dr. Adenauer himself? Dr. Adenauer is arguing that there must be unification of Germany just as Mr. Willy Brandt is arguing and just as some of my hon. Friends are arguing that it is in the interests of the pacification of the world that there should be unification of Germany.
I say to the House that unification of Germany is not only, in my view, a menace to world peace but is an absolute impossibility because Eastern Europe is not going to have it. Why do we chase this political chimera? It is not there. We are exhausting ourselves arguing that we must have a united Germany and we must make her a military force because a united Germany is essential. I doubt this. I think that the political raison d'être of Willy Brandt would vanish and so would Dr. Adenauer's if there were to be a united Germany. Anyway, they are not going to get it, and I am not particularly anxious that they should.
But at the moment, on the eve of the German elections—they are to take place in mid-September—both the parties in their political attitude, particularly where the Oder-Neisse Line and the return of the lost provinces are concerned, are going to be able to say, "Both sides in the House of Commons do not object to our men going to England. Here is a great gesture which both parties in the House of Commons are supporting and, therefore, you voters can take it for granted that opinion in Britain is on our side." I believe this to be fundamentally untrue. I believe the idea of German troops in this country is repugnant to the majority of the people here, and that we ought to be saying so.
It is argued that this is an opportunity for an intergration of the Germans into N.A.T.O. It is said that it is better to have German guns firing on our ranges in Pembrokeshire than to have them firing near their Eastern borders. But if it is right that they should come out of Germany to fire their guns and


it is necessary to integrate them into N.A.T.O., why do they not go to the United States where there is plenty of room to fire their guns? Why come here? It is perfectly simple to take 600 soldiers to the United States and let them exercise there, but they have to be brought here for the political reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).
It is said that if we were to vote against this tonight it would be destructive of the N.A.T.O. alliance. If N.A.T.O. is so weak that an expression on our part that we do not want German troops to be trained in this country would be destructive of it, the sooner we start reorganising it or get out of it the better. It is a ludicrous argument that if we oppose Germans coming into this country we will be dealing a deathblow to N.A.T.O. N.A.T.O. will have many more blows before the last page of history is written. It will have blows from the French, for De Gaulle is giving it blow after blow. The Germans themselves are giving it blow after blow, and I do not believe that our opposition tonight would give the congé to the whole N.A.T.O. alliance.
This Order will go through. Soon we shall have another debate. It will not be about 600 men coming for three weeks but something more sinister and more dangerous than that, but I hope with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) that in October the rank and file of the Labour Party at our Conference will express their view so clearly that our general attitude will change, and for the better.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I do not know what effect the debate has had on the Minister of Defence or whether he expected it to take the serious turn which has developed in its later stages, but I should like to pay tribute to the skill with which he introduced the Order. I think he slightly miscalculated what would be the mood of the House, but certainly his speech will read very well. His method of soft-pedalling the whole thing and indicating it as something of very little importance was extremely skilful and well done. The right hon. Gentleman told us with great delicacy of the arrangements made to cause nobody any inconvenience, not even the sheep. It was a nice touch to

say that there would be no soldiers about to interfere with the grazing and that the range would be used only in the winter. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman over-played it a little.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt very effectively with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) on atomic weapons. He made it perfectly clear that that had been conceded already. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) was complaining about. We had the thick end of the wedge first—all the concessions have been made about atomic training. As the Minister so gracefully said, nobody would think of using atomic weapons on a range that size. But we have on offer the range in the Hebrides for any Germans who want to come and use it. It is still open. This is on record. It has been confirmed. It will be confirmed by the vote tonight. It is endorsed. We are moving step by step, rejecting all the guarantees and all the conditions which are supposed to have been laid down. The Minister has made it clear to us that even our own tank units could not use this range for any serious purpose. They have to go where they cart get 72,000 acres in Germany whereas this range is only 5,000 acres. As for the suggestion that the Germans have to go to Pembrokeshire because they cannot find 5,000 acres of their own—although they can find 72.000 acres for the wider type of manoeuvre—I do not suppose anyone would be expected to take that argument very seriously.
When I hear all these arguments about the interchangeability of units, the brilliant suggestions about the logistic dividing up of our forces, and when the Minister reminds us of this political control by fifteen, and when I hear that the troops are not going to do anything to interfere with the grazing, and all these other soothing arguments, I have to pinch myself to realise what sort of debate this is.
Is this serious? Are we really talking about preparations for a situation where a nuclear war can break out at the shortest possible notice as a result of an accident? Is it not the effect of that psychological atmosphere in the world which is far more important than assurances that the grazing will not be interfered with at Castlemartin? Ought not


we to be discussing those implications? That has been evaded tonight. It is true that it is not within the terms of the Order, but the object of the Order can be considered only in the light of the other preparations that are going on.
There is a news item tonight about the next kind of early warning which will give us a little more than four minutes. I do not know whether the gentleman who thought of the name for it will get into trouble. I think he must be a pacifist, a neutralist or a fellow-traveller. The name that it has been given is Midas. Perhaps the barber will reveal that this Midas has ass's ears as well.
The real basis on which we are arguing, I should have thought, was the way to prevent nuclear war breaking out by accident. The Minister attempted one approach, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was obviously deeply moved by the fact that he could have made the Minister's speech very much better. He naturally said that the Minister had not put his case at all well. Of course, that is perfectly true, because that is not really the Minister's case; it is my right hon. Friend's case. My right hon. Friend has been making it for years—and he ought to be better at it by now—with passionate sincerity. He really believes that this integration of conventional forces can work—as part of the police functions of the United Nations, I suppose, and to that extent, of course, I agree with him. I do not know of anyone Who would disagree with the proposition that the contributions to the defence potential of the United Nations for dealing with minor outbreaks are worthy of attention.
But when my right hon. Friend is talking and using this new vocabulary about logistics, interchange and so on, he means the device by which one puts the bows in one place and the arrows in another or the bolts in one camp and the rifles in another and brings them together after a committee meeting. That is all right if one is dealing with a situation which gives one some notice that it is working up. It might be all right for equipping units to serve under a United Nations command, but it has very little to do with the shadow that hangs over all of us—the shadow of nuclear destruction.
I am surprised that very little has been said tonight about that. There has been a good deal of reference to hatred. It is worth while inquiring where the hatreds are being directed in the world today. The old hatreds, it is true, have to some extent been modified and altered. Indeed, I am sometimes appalled at the reflection that the present situation as we see it emerge from Government policy as a whole is not far removed in general principle from what Mr. Rudolph Hess arrived to urge upon his friends in this country. I cannot say that without hurting somebody's feelings. It sounds as if I am sneering merely because these resentments are not all dead. Yet if this proposition could be examined in calmness, it would be found that this general policy has been upheld by strong forces in this country ever since the end of the first World War—forces which were shown to have miscalculated a little in 1939—but have been slowly emerging since.
I am surprised that no one on the Conservative benches has thought fit to spend any time tonight discussing whether the risks of nuclear war have increased or decreased with—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is getting out of order.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Parkin: I must accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am also interested in the enthusiastic support which it received from inside and actually from outside the Chamber as well.
If we are to be told that this has nothing to do with the dangers of a nuclear war, I think that that ought to be said more clearly. I thought that it was part of our general defence policy, and, if it is, we ought to be talking not quite so much about forgiving the Germans and a little bit more about how to improve our relations with the Russians. There is no question about what this debate is all about. It is based on the assumption that there will be a war between the Soviet Union and the United States, with us tagging along. There is no other issue. We should not be talking at this length and at this hour of the night if it were merely a question of training a few "rookies" in Wales.
That being so, I should have liked to have heard more from hon. Members opposite about their conception of whether Communism has changed in character or not and which brand of Communism they are opposed to at the present time, because the situation has certainly changed—

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I am sitting immediately below my hon. Friend, I am finding it very difficult to hear what he is saying because of the constant noise coming from the other side of the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I hope hon. Members will not make audibility painful.

Mr. Parkin: I used to put a good deal of hope in the diplomatic activities of the present Prime Minister before he got old and tired. There really did seem to be a time when it was the exact moment—with his maturity and his capacity to relax and look back over the centuries to get the historical perspective—for a man to take the sort of decision which was made when it was decided roughly in the West that militant Mohammedism was no longer a military danger to the inhabitants of this country; when there was a dynamic change and the thought of military conquest spent itself and that branch of civilisation developed in another way—

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the Question before the House.

Mr. Parkin: As I understand it, the Question before the House is whether we should train German soldiers in Wales for the purpose, I should suppose, of repelling an enemy, and that enemy can be identified. There is only one in the world at the moment which attracts the attention of those who want to see this kind of rearmament going on. I hope that it is not too far out of order to discuss whether the supposed trend of attack is one which has modified and developed and has changed in another direction. After all, if hon. Gentlemen opposite—

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, that would be out of order. The Question is whether the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1961, should be approved or not.

Mr. Parkin: I should emphasise that this is 1961 and that times have changed since N.A.T.O. was formed and when there were discussions about bringing various nations of Europe into an emergency arrangement—whether the decisions were right or wrong. The nations which are not in N.A.T.O. have developed and altered in the course of the years. The Prime Minister has taken the view that the time has come to agree to agree—no more than that—with many problems left unsolved. He took the view that the evolving nature of Communism was such that we could reach an agreement with the Russians at least to agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want the hon. Member's help and that of the House in maintaining order. The point is, "Aye" or "No", should we approve this Order? The hon. Member is a long way wide of that. I do not wish to restrict him, but he must bear that Question in mind.

Mr. Parkin: I must try to help you, Mr. Speaker, because you always try to help me. From your point of view it is "Aye" or "No", but in varions parts of the House the matter is more complicated than that. Many of us have felt humiliated by the fact that we have not voted according to our views on previous occasions, and that is why we are tempted to widen the discussion beyond what you think is the scope of the Order by suggesting that as the years go by there must be changes in the nature of the supposed threat to Western civilisation. I am sorry that no one has thought it right to assess the importance of these changes. If I were to mention China you would be thoroughly annoyed with me, and I should not blame you, but I wish that people would decide which kind of Communism they think—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Member an unmistakable warning that I shall feel it necessary to require him to resume his seat unless he remains in order.

Mr. Parkin: I am indeed obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I think that I have made my point and that it would add nothing to the argument if I tried to justify what I have said. That is my point, and you have allowed me to make it.

11.08 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) with considerable interest, but I found myself in disagreement with one of his basic assumptions—namely, that this Order and other matters which we have discussed about defence were on the assumption that there will be a war. I must make it clear that when considering defence in the House I always have worked on the assumption that, provided that we are prepared, there will not be a war. I must point out that fundamental difference between us.
I cannot see that there is any logical political or defence case against the Order. On the other hand, I think that there is an emotional case against it. I have every sympathy with, fully understand and to a great extent share that feeling when discussing such an Order as this. It is only sixteen years ago that we reached the end of the Second World War—and sixteen years in the life span of the majority of hon. Members, let alone in the life of a nation, is a comparatively short period. It is a shorter period in my life than in that of the vast majority of hon. Members. One cannot wipe out of one's mind in sixteen years some of the terrible things which happened such a short time ago. Nevertheless, we have to face the fact that we have admitted the German Federal Republic as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and of the Brussels Treaty Organisation.
In the Brussels Treaty we recognised the fact that Germany was the aggressor in Europe during the period 1939–45 by putting her in a rather different position from the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by imposing certain limits on her armaments. I am sorry that in the years since the Treaty was signed there has been a certain easing of those limits, culminating just a few weeks ago in the permission given to Germany to build comparatively large cruisers—I prefer to call them cruisers rather than destroyers—which in my view, are completely useless for defence, and simply provide political ammunition for those on the other side of the Iron Curtain who wish to stir up trouble in Western Europe on any pretext they can find.
We have been too easy in allowing Germany to have certain types of armaments—

Mr. Warbey: Then why has not my hon. Friend opposed those amendments to the Treaty?

Mr. Reynolds: As a member of the Western European Union, I have voiced my views to that Assembly, and on one occasion when a Parliamentary Question was asked by a right hon. Member for one of the Durham constituencies I stated that I could see no military value in these things and that wherever they might be used I could not see them lasting for more than five minutes. As far as I know, however, we have not had a debate on the matter since the alterations to the Treaty were made.
I have no doubt that although we regard Germany as being in a slightly inferior position to the rest of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we have to face the fact that there is a German contribution to that Organisation. It should be in the region of twelve divisions; it seems to be taking an inordinate length of time to get to that strength, but in due course the German force will build up to something near that level. I am thankful that those German troops are completely deployed, some as part of the American Seventh Army, and some as part of the B.A.O.R., and that as there is no German military organisation above divisional level they are completely integrated with the Americans, France, ourselves and the other N.A.T.O. countries.
One has only to travel through Central Europe to see the vast agglomeration of war equipment and men gathered in Western Germany at the present time. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that it would be impossible somewhere in Western Germany to find the few acres of land that are apparently necessary for the fairly simple training of German Panzer units. I cannot believe that, somewhere in Western Germany, there is not an area where this training that is now proposed shall be given on the Castlemartin range could not be carried out.
I think that by inviting these units here, or permitting them to come here for this training, we do not really in any way strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty


Organisation or the Western Alliance. On the other hand, we do provide first-class political propaganda for the Soviet Union which, despite the fact that the Russians train their own tank crews in Hungary, will make the most of the warlike preparations they will say that we are enabling the Germans to indulge in in this country, and I would implore the Minister of Defence once again to look at this matter.
As I have said, I just cannot believe that in Western Germany there is not a site big enough for this work. The Secretary of State for War shakes his head, but how much land does it need to train 600 men? When one sees the wide open spaces there are in Western Germany, one finds it impossible to believe that the necessary training land cannot be found there. I hope, even now, that the matter can be reviewed.
On the other hand, I welcome this Order and, for another reason, will certainly not vote against it tonight. We are discussing the one question of the visit of these troops to the United Kingdom, but once the Order has been passed it will not be limited merely to a visit of that nature.
I hope that during the next few years we shall see a build-up in this country of German stores in some of the ordnance and supply depots that the British Army is closing down. Closing them down is liable to cause a good deal of unemployment in certain areas, and once this Order has been passed we shall be able to provide supply depot facilities for the West German forces. I understand that the Germans are complaining that such facilities are not available in Western Germany and that they are asking for facilities in order to store equipment and supplies in other parts of Europe. I would welcome the storage of such material in Britain—and naval equipment, too, if required—and I would be only too pleased to see those goods stored here.
Had the Germans had those things stored here in 1939 we could not have had the Second World War. My hon. Friends want to see a greater control over the German armed forces. What greater control can one have than to have German army supply dumps sited

here? As I say, I should be only too pleased to see such dumps here and, once this Order has been passed, the necessary small units of German technicians and others necessary to look after the administration of these supply dumps will be able to come here.
It would ease the minds of many people not only to have German divisions intergrated from a command point of view within the general allied structure in Europe, but to have direct control over the supplies necessary for any army should it wish to use any initiative of its own.

Mr. Hale: Do I understand my hon. Friend to be saying that if we have German supply dumps in Britain and British supply dumps in Western Germany, we shall be able to pinch the German supply dumps in a time of war and they will be able to pinch ours? What is the practical benefit of that in the present situation?

Mr. Reynolds: My hon. Friend is trying to make an amusing point which really has no relevance to the situation we are discussing. I am pointing out that if we have such supply dumps in this country for the German forces we would inevitably have a much greater control over the mobility and activity of that army than we would in any other way. Obviously we must have considerable supply and ordnance depots on the Continent, in B.A.O.R. As for my hon. Friend's intervention about them being taken over, I find that suggestion quite ridiculous and I do not think I need go into that matter further.
I believe that we are discussing a subject that is charged with emotion. I have a great deal of sympathy and share a large amount of the feelings that emanate from memories of the period between 1939 and 1945. But I cannot believe that a vote against this Order can be regarded as a vote against Nazism or anything of that nature. I do not believe that it can be regarded as a vote against N.A.T.O. or German militarism. It would simply be a vote on an emotion, and I do not see how one can run this country, this House, our military strategy or the defence of this country if one's ideas are based on emotion, rather than on the factual position.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: Much as I did not intend to enter into this debate, and while I do not intend to make a long speech—especially in view of the scope of the subject—I should like just to make one short appeal to my hon. Friends who oppose this Order.
They should remember that many thousands of British and American troops are in Germany at the present time. There are vast military operations going on all the time at Luneburg Heath and elsewhere. An interesting and striking fact is that the German population—even the farmers of Luneburg Heath whose property has been damaged—have paid tribute to the restraint of the British troops, particularly from the Berlin garrison.
It is clear, whatever may be the individual feelings of some of my hon. Friends, that this decision taken by the N.A.T.O. Council has been accepted by the Government and will be adopted. Even if the whole Labour Party voted against it, it would be adopted—and the whole of the Labour Party does not intend to vote against it. I therefore appeal to my hon. Friends.
There have been demonstrations in South Wales and those demonstrations must have stirred up feelings against this proposal. That may be legitimate before the decision is taken, but, once the decision is taken, I appeal to those hon. Members to recognise that these young German soldiers who are coming to this country are doing so with the best of intentions as individuals, and that the least we can do, once the decision has been taken that they should come, is to give them a welcome and at least the same kind of welcome as is given to our troops in the garrisons in Germany. I hope that no hon. Member at that stage will lend himself to any attempt to stir up trouble which can only cause difficulties not only for these young soldiers but for ourselves and for all our allies in Europe and the world as a whole.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: I trust that in his reply the Minister of Defence will take the issue rather more widely and more gravely than he did in his opening statement.
This is an issue perhaps of a limited scope in its formal aspect, but obviously one of tremendous importance in all its implications. I agree in this, though I am afraid in this alone, with some of my hon. Friends who have opposed this Motion, that what we are really discussing here is the issue of N.A.T.O. If one is opposed to N.A.T.O. and all that it stands for, it logically follows that one opposes what is proposed here—the training of German troops in this country. But I put it to every hon. Member who is not prepared to come out in opposition to N.A.T.O. that if one stands by N.A.T.O. one really cannot treat a country as a pariah and as an ally at the same time.

Sir L. Plummer: Does the same argument apply to Portugal and Portuguese troops in this country?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly. We can and do object in the strongest possible way to the colonial policy of Portugal. That is an entirely different thing. It does not mean that we cannot object to some policy of the West German Government.

Mr. M. Foot: The argument of my right hon. Friend about Portugal was that it was very disadvantageous to have the procedures for the training of troops at a moment when we strongly objected to a particular aspect of Portuguese policy. But in the same way with Germany Dr. Adenauer only a few days ago denounced entirely the whole of the foreign policy of the Labour Party. He denounced the Rapacki Plan. He denounced the plans for disengagement. Does my right hon. Friend think it is a good idea that at such a moment the Labour Party should go out of its way to commend the idea of German troops being trained in this country? Have we not as much right to protest against this policy of the German Government as we protested against the colonial policy of the Portuguese Government?

Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend has a right to protest against any speech made by Dr. Adenauer. So have I and so has everybody, and we all exercise such a right. But this is an entirely different question of whether Germany, rightly or wrongly, but nevertheless an integral and indispensable part of the N.A.T.O. alliance, is to be treated as a pariah at


the same time as she is treated as an ally. I repeat that that is an impossible position. If we do not accept the logic of that, we must go all the way and say that the whole N.A.T.O. policy is an impossible one.
I turn for a moment to nuclear arms. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has said on several occasions, our opposition to nuclear arms for Germany is not discrimination against Germany. We oppose it because, rightly or wrongly, we are opposed to nuclear arms being diffused through the N.A.T.O. alliance at all, including this country. That may be right or wrong, but it is a perfectly logical position to take. We are not opposed to the diffusion of conventional arms. On the contrary, I for my part—I think the overwhelming majority of my hon. and right hon. Friends take the same view—believe that the strengthening of the conventional arms of the N.A.T.O. alliance is, in the short run at any rate, the most important contribution to peace which there can possibly be. Year after year, we have criticised the Government repeatedly for being far too nuclear in their defence policy. From the famous—I would say infamous—White Paper of 1958 onwards, their policy has been to rely far too much on nuclear weapons.
In the strengthening of the conventional forces of N.A.T.O., whether we like it or not, the strengthening of the German contingent and its proper training is an indispensable part. It is quite impossible for those of us who regard the conventional strength of N.A.T.O. as exceedingly important in order to avoid the intolerable dilemma of either surrender or blowing up the world to oppose the training of one particular and indispensable part of the N.A.T.O. conventional forces.
I ask my hon. Friends who oppose this Motion to remember that the real effect of their opposition, if it were to succeed, would be to throw the N.A.T.O. alliance back far more than it is today—and it is too much so already--on to dependence on nuclear weapons. It is these broader considerations which must weigh with us and, we believe, make it impossible for us to oppose the Order, and with which, it

seems to us, the Minister of Defence should deal, rather than the details which are not of the first importance, surely, of this particular proposal in South Wales.

11.28 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): In courtesy, I must deal with one or two of the details, because I know that they are of great concern to hon. Members who, after all, have a constituency or local interest. I shall then return to the big issue. Although I spoke quietly, designedly, in my opening remarks—I did not wish to raise more emotion than I knew was already present—it will be found, I think, that I did then pose what I believe is the real choice before the House. I shall return to it shortly.
First, the details. The range itself will be in charge of a lieutenant-colonel, in other words, a senior officer. That meets the point made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). All German range officers will be duplicated by British range officers. This is to give the element of safety.
Hon. Members have tried to suggest that it is easy to find 5,000 acres in Germany for a training and firing area. This is not so. One has also to have a safe range area over a large distance of sea, and it is not so easy to find that in Germany. A most searching examination was made by N.A.T.O.—not by us and not by the Germans—of the range training areas available, and it was forced to the conclusion that Castle-martin was the only available place where this elementary training could be done.
In answer to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I do not know the numbers, but it was proved to us in the Paris talks that there was an increasing number of German troops who were not able to have proper training because of the lack of range facilities. The proof of this, I think, is that the Germans are willing to put themselves to a good deal of expense and trouble to come here. They have their own fears and doubts about the exercise, too, Of course, N.A.T.O., including ourselves, has over 200,000 acres in occupation in Germany for training of


one kind and another. Therefore, on the details and on the military facts, an absolutely clear and irrefutable case was made for the use of this range.
As to the requirements of the Visiting Forces Act, there have been detailed consultations with the police. It will clearly mean that German soldiers, like Americans, Canadians, Norwegians or anybody else here, off duty will be subject to the ordinary processes of the British law. On duty, they will be under the proper control of their own officers and, therefore, can be controlled and disciplined. On the whole, that is the right balance.
Concerning claims for compensation, road access and other matters, I have covered the main points made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). I will write him about his more detailed points.
I come now to the main point, which was made by both the right hon. Member for Belper and the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey)—it is a vital point for this House and for all of us—of whether we mean to stand by the N.A.T.O. alliance or whether we do not. We cannot examine this German problem unless we examine it in that context. I support those hon. Members, both on this side and on the benches opposite, who have made one thing plain. It is a fact that the Federal Republic of West Germany now has large armed forces. An hon. Member has just said that they should be twelve divisions, and they will be; that is the N.A.T.O. requirement.
They are there. The choice that this House and the country has to make is whether we want them integrated in the N.A.T.O. alliance. Do we want them to draw more closely into a pattern of alliance that makes it much more difficult for any one country to take independent action? If people do not accept the military alliance and integration, perhaps they will accept the clear political control which the N.A.T.O. Council has over all the actions of the military.
General Norstad, as SACEUR, and Admiral Dennison, as SACLANT, have

always said what is clearly true: they are entirely subject to the orders of the N.A.T.O. Council, on which fifteen democratic nations are represented. I do not see what better safeguard there can be, even for those hon. Members belong the Gangway who are very sincere, no doubt, in their emotions. They cannot have a better safeguard, if they want one, against a revanchist Germany than that. But I do not look at it that way, and what I want to say in closing is this.

Mr. Parkin: Mr. Parkin rose—

Mr. Watkinson: No, I will finish my remarks. The N.A.T.O. alliance is an alliance of equals. It is an alliance in which, if N.A.T.O. takes a decision, it is a great blow to the alliance if it is not carried out. We would be going absolutely against the whole N.A.T.O. policy, against a decision of N.A.T.O., if we now refused these rights to the Germans. Therefore, in my view, although this may be a small action on its own, taken in the broader context refusal on our part would mean that Great Britain was not prepared to play her full part in the alliance.
As, I believe, it is the alliance that stands between us and a third world war—it has no aggressive intent, but it stands there as a shield against anybody else who wants to break the peace by aggression—this of all times is the wrong time for our island not to show that we support N.A.T.O., that we will bear our responsibilities and that we will play our full part in helping our N.A.T.O. partners.
Therefore, we have no opportunity to do other than take this responsibility, difficult though it is. I hope that, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) said. it is carried through properly and that we give these young men a fair and honest welcome, because they play no part in this old controversy. I hope that it is in that sense that the House will pass the Order, be done with this business and try to get on with the job of keeping the peace and strengthening the N.A.T.O. alliance.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Division No. 254.1
AYES
[11.35 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Percival, Ian


Allason James
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Atkins, Humphrey
Green, Alan
Pitt, Miss Edith


Balniel, Lord
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pott, Percivall


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pym, Francis


Bingham, R. M.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Ramsden, James


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Rawlinson, Peter


Bossom, Clive
Hendry, Forbes
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hiley, Joseph
Rees, Hugh


Box, Donald
Hill, j. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hopkins, Alan
Roots, William


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, R. P.
Russell, Ronald


Buck, Antony
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullard, Denys
Hughes-Young, Michael
Shaw, M.


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smithers, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Speir, Rupert


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cleaver, Leonard
Kirk, Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Teeling, William


Corfield, F. V.
Leather, E. H. C.
Turner, Colin


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Leavey, J. A.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Leburn, Gilmour
Vane, W. M. F.


Curran, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Walder, David


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Walker, Peter


de Ferranti, Basil
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Wad, Patrick


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


du Cann, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Duncan, Sir James
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Webster, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Stratton
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Farr, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Finlay, Graeme
Morgan, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Noble, Michael
Woodhouse, C. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Woollam, John


Gammans, Lady
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Worsley, Marcus


Gardner, Edward
Page, John (Harrow, West)



Gibson-Watt, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Partridge, E.
Mr. Edward Wakefield and.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison


Goodhart, Philip
Peel, John




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Ross, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Small, William


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Steele, Thomas


Brockway, A. Fenner
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Swingler, Stephen


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Warbey, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Weitzman, David


Davies, 8. o. (Merthyr)
Lawson, George
Wilkins, W. A.


Diamond, John
Mclnnes, James
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Donnelly, Desmond
Mayhew, Christopher
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Milne, Edward J.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. c.
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Greenwood, Anthony
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Mr. Ifor Davies.


Grimond, J.
Reynolds, C. W.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes. 46.

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 10.

Bossom, Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pott, Percivall


Box, Donald
Hastings, Stephen
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brewis, John
Hendry, Forbes
Pym, Francis


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bryan, Paul
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Ramsden, James


Buck, Antony
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Peter


Bullard, Denys
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hopkins, Alan
Rees, Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornby, R. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Chataway, Christopher
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Chichester-Clark, B.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robinson, sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Roots, William


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Russell, Ronald


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shaw, M.


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Skeet, T. H. H.


Courtney, cdr. Anthony
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kirk, Peter
Smithers, Peter


Curran, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Speir, Rupert


Currie, G. B. H.
Leather, E. H. C.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Dance, James
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, W. F.
Leburn, Gilmour
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


de Ferranti, Basil
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Teeling, William


Doughty, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Turner, Colin


du Cann, Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Errington, Sir Eric
Maginnis, John E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Farr, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walder, David


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Gammans, Lady
Mills, Stratton
Ward, Dame Irene


Gardner, Edward
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, William
Webster, David


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Noble, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Goodhart, Philip
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Whitelaw, William


Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grimond, J.
Par[...]ridge, E.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Woollam, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Percival, Ian



Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Finlay and Mr. Gibson-Watt.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)



Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Brockway, A. Fenner
Warbey, William
Mr. Michael Foot and


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Weitzman, David
Mr. Emrys Hughes.


Davies, s. o. (Merthyr)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Resolved,
That the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

SUICIDE BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th July], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure that I heard you correctly. Did you call the Suicide Bill? I thought we had just dealt with that.

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk read the Orders of the Day, the next one being the Suicide Bill.

Question again proposed.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: As one who may have committed suicide by going through the Lobby in the Division just now, perhaps it is appropriate that I should have the opportunity of continuing the debate which was interrupted last Friday.
On that occasion I was suggesting that it might well be that the praise which was being accorded to the Bill is by no means in all respects justified. I was suggesting that perhaps we might be expected to wonder at the compassion of a Bill that ensures that no longer will the survivor of a suicide pact have to face a manslaughter charge but at the same time a new offence be created, one which causes the survivor to be


liable only to suffer the living death of 14 years' imprisonment.
What I am complaining about is that the Bill does not in any way aim to reduce the 5,000 suicides and the 25,000–30,000 attempted suicides which unfortunately take place annually. On the contrary, in my view it is likely that as a concequence of this Bill we may find that the numbers may increase. I realise that we have just passed the peak season for killing oneself. Murderers, I have observed, are less discriminate and do not appear to have any seasonal choice. Judging by statistics they prefer to kill only on Saturdays. When it comes to the suicide of Britain, as in other lands, they tend to wait until late spring. This is understandable. It is then that life affirms itself in all its glory and the lonely ones can no longer tolerate their personal loneliness and they choose to die.
Although the height of the suicide season is over for this year, the toll of the figures over the year and over the decade will mount. Between 1950 and 1959 deaths by suicide actually exceeded the deaths by road accidents. There were 48,053 killed on the roads and 49,178 killed themselves during that period. As many people attempted to commit suicide in this period as there are population in the city in which I live, Cardiff, the capital of Wales. This grim measure of the social health of a community is in this new Bill, in my view, characteristically ignored by the Government.
I find this Bill in tune with recent Home Office Measures like the Matrimonial Act, which went some way to perfect the machinery for the severance of marriages but did nothing to mend them; or the latest Indecency Against Children Act, which pruriently created unusual and Lolita-like offences but made no effort to emancipate those characters who compulsively practised the bizarre aberration which the Measure adumbrates. In short, this Bill follows the Pontius Pilate view unashamedly proclaimed in the White Paper, "Penal Practice in a Changing Society," which says that this Government
does not seek to deal with those deep seated causes of crime

which, says, the White Paper, are "largely beyond reach." So we find on this occasion the Government are conquering crime by causing self-murder to be no longer included in criminal statistics.
Many of the depressives who savagely destroy themselves could, in my view, be saved. Some could be rescued by such a simple measure, for example, as limiting the reports of inquests. Many solicitors share the view that coroners' courts are an expensive anachronism. Recently we had the inquest on the child Linda Smith which came dangerously near to being trial by coroner. The main use of inquests in these days seems to be as a fishing expedition for insurance company and other solicitors who are seeking evidence to enable them to resist claims for damages. But the proceedings of these inquests are highly publicised and there is demonstrably grave danger in this.
Every investigator into suicide has commented upon the imitative factor. It is said that when Lord Castlereagh threw himself into Vesuvius several of his companions immediately followed his example. I do not know whether that is true. But the Sunday Times, I notice, in a report on university suicides, quoted a psychiatrist commenting on the startling suicide rate in Oxford, where it has recently been five times the national average, as saying that in a social environment like the major universities one suicide tended to spark off another.
I noticed in the Daily Telegraph recently a report of a Cornish coroner who said that the fact that two children had recently died by putting plastic bags over their heads had indicated a means of suicide for the woman who had been found dead with a plastic bag over her head and into whose death he was conducting an inquiry. I observed that only last month there was another suicide involving an unhappy agricultural student where the same practice—a plastic bag—was used.
If we read the literature on suicides, going back as far as Durkheim's classic book in the 1880's, we find that he had a great understanding that within society there is a grave initiative factor. He gave many instances, for example, of a hospital corridor which had a fatal attraction for many men and an infamous


sentry box in Boulogne which seemed to act as a spur to one suicide after another. A bridge in Chicago was another example. This initiative factor has not changed. In one region in this country a few years ago, where there had not been such a form of suicide for 50 years, there was a minor wave of suicides by tin plate workers jumping into vats of sulphuric acid, precipitated by zealous inquest reporting of the first case.
We are well aware of the great concern expressed recently that Press reports of murders were exciting others of the same vicious kind. The Guardian published in March an interesting survey by Mr. Bryan Wilson and Mr. Malcolm Bradbury which concluded that some responsibility for crime waves could be laid at the door of Fleet Street. I understand that there is a Home Office research unit engaged at the moment on an analyses of the effect of Press publicity in stimulating psychopaths to murder. As for suicides, this point has been made a thousand times since the time of the proverbial and fateful tree of Timon of Athens.
There is considerable evidence that inquest reports are killers. The frail, overwhelmed by real or imaginary injuries of life, which they find hostile, or the suggestible, who have previously kept at bay, as they may be able to do, their lurking death wish, find, when they see the example of others luridly and excitingly portrayed, that they are sometimes incited to follow that unhappy example. I realise the dangers of tinkering with the freedom of the Press, but I doubt whether either the freedom or the circulation figures of the newspapers would suffer if the necromancing readers were deprived of reports of the latest annihilation.
There are precedents, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, for dealing with this sort of problem. Restrictions were placed on the reporting of divorce proceedings. I believe that a curb on inquest reports would not only be a minor preventive measure against suicide but would save relatives from often ugly and embarrassing publicity. It would also save many innocent parties from dreadful, well-publicised paranoic accusations so often written in suicide notes which are made even as the gas hisses.
I recall a few years ago that a defeated commercial traveller quite unjustifiably accused a pools firm of swindling him of a prize. While parleys began between him and the firm, the traveller went to his hotel room and wrote and posted letters to most of the national daily newspapers proclaiming that the pools were to be responsible for his death and inviting the Press to a Press conference the next morning. The reporters duly arrived to find that the man had certainly filled in his last coupon he had poisoned himself in the night.
I urge the Government during the course of the Bill to consider introducing a Clause curbing inquest reports. But if inquest reports are only a precipitatory factor in suicides, other factors are probably catastrophic, like orphanhood. Research work discussed at last year's World Federation for Mental Health Congress at Edinburgh showed that the loss of a father, particularly between the age of ten and the age of fourteen, could treble the possibility of the child becoming an adult depressive.
There is nothing new in this concept. Homer told of the depressive effect of orphanhood in Andromachne's lament in the Iliad. On the Gold Coast, which many regard as being a comparatively primitive society, though it obviously has healthier values in that adult depressives are very rare, there is the primitive convention of the immediate adoption of orphans by the next of kin. Here, to a great extent, we are dependent on the quality and the number of child care officers.
A Government genuinely concerned with this great social problem would supply the 1,400 child care officers who are now needed so desperately. When, at the present rate of expansion and training, do the Government hope to obtain the 200 trained child care officers who are needed each year if we are to meet the present needs? Do the Government intend to be completely dependent on charitable organisations or the Nuffield Trust, or do they intend to make a serious drive to get these officers, who are so important?
Again, if the Government were taking a less perfunctory attitude to suicides than is revealed in this Bill, would they not be giving thought to the need for


increasing the number of mental welfare officers and psychiatric social workers, particularly since the passing of the Mental Health Act? Would they not give this priority? We all know that one of the aims of that Measure is to stop patients being institutionalised, and to turn larger numbers out of the mental hospitals into the community.
I wonder whether the Government realise that before the Act was passed more than two-thirds of those who, on release, subsequently committed suicide did so within a year of being released—most of them within six months? With the new policy of the Mental Health Act, aimed at speedier releases and larger turnover, the need for psychiatric social workers to give support to ex-patients becomes more and more clamorous. Otherwise, some of these released patients will lamentably be hostages to fortune.
The grim picture in South Wales and Monmouthshire is that there is only one qualified full-time psychiatric social worker employed within the Health Services in the whole of this densely populated area. Again, I ask a Government giving more than lip-service to their regret at the suicide rate, when they will take more seriously the implementation of the Younghusband Report, calling for a training programme to give us psychiatric social workers, and an additional 1,000 mental welfare officers.
The whole question of preventing suicides depends on the character and quality of aid that can be given to those who are suffering from signs of mental ill health. When a survey was made of 800 suicides in twelve counties of Wales by Dr. Alan Capstick of Whitchurch Hospital, Cardiff, it was found that four out of five had seen doctors for symptoms that were danger signals, but that only one in five had been referred to psychiatrists for aid. This must clearly lead to criticism.
Unfortunately, in Wales, as in a few other regions, psychiatry is the Cinderella of the medical services, and the Medical College is clearly at fault in not pressing the University Grants Committee sufficiently vigorously for a chair and department of psychiatry which could give Welsh graduates the psychiatric training to which they have

a right; and which might play a part, among its other contributions, in preventing the 200 suicides and 1,200 to 1,500 attempted suicides that take place in Wales every year.
The number of people who are likely to die annually by their own hand is bound to increase as the age structure of the population changes. In Wales about 60 per cent. of suicides occur among those over the age of 50 where there is only 30 per cent. of that age group in the population. This reflects the national trend. It is a sad comment on our society that the only occasion in recent years when this trend was arrested was during the war years, when elderly men were able to obtain and to be paid for useful employment. Without increases in old-aged pensions and more community concern for the 2 million isolated old people in Britain who are said to be completely housebound, an even greater number of aged people will kill themselves than is at present the case.
The primitive character of our geriatric services plays a considerable part in the annual total. I hope that the Minister who will reply will not say that many of these points are outside his departmental responsibilities. I should have thought that the work done, but largely ignored, on the psychology of murderers would have brought home to him the relationship between depression and crime which psychiatrists, with little avail, have been emphasising. I would point out that 40 per cent. of murderers in Britain kill themselves before arrest. Many of the others attempt suicide before their trial. Yet others, who are known to have shown all the clinical signs of depression shortly before they hammer their wives to death or cut their heads off, spontaneously "cure" themselves after the act of violence, as if the very explosive nature of the act had acted as a cartharsis.
The Home Secretary could spare himself some of the agony he doubtless passes through as he considers reprieves for murderers if he would lift the Home Office ban on exploring the roots of crime. It is no use merely collecting statistics. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to repudiate the White Paper declaration that the Home Office does not seek to explore the deep seated roots of crime.
I make no apologies for delaying the House even at this late hour, because I believe this to be a great problem and one which requires considerable attention. It is a problem that in no circumstances should be hurried or treated with scant respect. I have said that this Bill in one way could increase and not diminish the incidence of suicides. Concern has already been expressed in another place that although the workings of the Mental Health Act will ensure that an attempted suicide who is certifiable will enter a mental hospital, although one in respect of whom a relative may take action will enter for treatment, there exists a gap—in my view a wide gap—left by the abolition of the criminal offence.
This will be the suicidal minority who are not certifiable but who are unwilling to accept treatment; a not unusual state among potential suicides. The point has not been met despite what has been said elsewhere. I would urge that powers be given to the courts to make temporary guardianship orders so that rehabilitation treatment could be given. This was suggested by Mr. St. John Stevas of the Economist in his thoughtful, erudite, recent work "Life, Death and the Law." It is suggested on the analogy of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, in order that adults in need of care and attention could be brought before the court. I believe that this was suggested by the B.M.A. Committee in 1947, but if this suggestion does not commend itself to the Under-Secretary, there are other ways in which it has been done in respect of other people, as for example under the National Assistance Act, 1948, whereby, under Section 47, anyone who is suffering from a grave chronic disease or who, being elderly, is living in insanitary conditions and unable to receive proper attention, and can be brought before the court and a suitable order can be made.
Again there is a Section in the Public Health Act which enables the removal to hospital of people who are suffering from tuberculosis or, in certain circumstances, suffering from some other notifiable disease. There is an opportunity to deal with this residue who otherwise would not be dealt with at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said that he hoped that the police would act in

the same gentle and understanding way in which they often act at the moment, but we in this House are often vigilant about the powers which the police are given, and if this matter were left in the air the police themselves would have to act with extraordinary caution, particularly when dealing with people who are depressive or paranoic. They could lay themselves open to all sorts of charges if there were no genuine power given to them to deal with such people.
I want more than a lawyers' Bill. That is why I have spoken at some length. I want this to be a genuine piece of social legislation which will make some contribution, albeit a small one, towards trying to deal with this grave and grim problem which belongs to the whole nation.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) pointed out that this was a very important Measure. I am sorry to delay the House at this late hour, but I think this is a Measure which we should discuss at some length. I wish to add my support and to say that I consider that the Bill is one which ought to have been brought forward a considerable time ago.
Clearly suicide or attempted suicide is not the sort of act which ought to be considered a criminal offence, and the alteration in the law in abolishing such consideration is belated and necessary. It is right that that change should be made. After all, the only reason why, from a practical point of view, the offence, if it is an offence, was regarded as a criminal one was to drive the person concerned through the processes of the law in order to provide remedial treatment of some sort. Nowadays, fortunately, that is not necessary.
Obviously, the person who commits or attempts suicide is a person who will not benefit from prison treatment. He does not deserve a prison sentence but obviously requires treatment of some kind. It is important to consider the reasons why a person is driven to attempt to commit suicide. What are the reasons? It may be because of unbearable pain. It may be a case of mental stress, worry and illness of some kind. Obviously, in attempting to remedy that


kind of situation, one ought to try to apply methods of research. One ought to see what is the best way of preventing people from getting into such a state that they make such attempts. If people do attempt to commit suicide, we ought to be ready to treat them, and do it in such a way that they are not likely to do it again.
I was struck by something said in another place about the loneliness of the individual. It is pathetic that in this age there must be thousands of people suffering terribly from loneliness, people who, perhaps, have cares or worries which they are not able to discuss with anyone. One noble Lord referred to the fact that, when he gave legal advice, people came to him and discussed their worries. I imagine that it is the experience of many hon. Members that, when they have their "surgeries", as we call them, many people come along with their troubles and anxieties, and I am sure that the mere fact that they are able to discuss matters with someone is of tremendous help. To a great extent, it alleviates their condition and helps to remedy their situation. I have often wondered whether we could devise a scheme whereby advice might be given so that people who had troubles preying on their minds could discuss their affairs and derive relief in that way.
It is undoubtedly true that there are oases of suicide or attempted suicide which are imitative in character. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool was quite right to raise this matter. People read stories, sometimes lurid stories, in the newspapers, and they are tempted to copy the methods about which they read. I feel that reports of inquests in the papers, with the details given—often horrible details—merely pander to the bad taste of individuals.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, we have a precedent in such matters. We all remember how it was recognised that the reports which used to be given at one time of divorce cases gave individuals a bad approach; it was really bad publicity in that way. Could something similar be done in regard to the reporting of suicide cases? Would it be possible for there to be a restriction on the publication of reports of suicide inquests, as there has been on publicity in divorce cases, possibly to an even

greater extent so that even the decision of the coroner might not be published unless the coroner thought that some important public purpose would be served by giving wider publicity to the matter?
The hour is late and I shall not detain the House. There are several matters which we ought to consider. Last Friday, the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) raised a point on Clause 2. They are Committee matters. We shall discuss them later. This is an excellent, though belated, Bill. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on his first appearance on the Front Bench as Under-Secretary of State, and I am glad that he has a Bill of this nature to commend to the House.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that he wished to apologise for detaining the House. I rather think that it is the Government who should be apologising for detaining the House. It is not our fault if a Bill which bears a date in March has not been introduced until this late hour of the Session. I hope that no one will complain if a few comments are made about it during Second Reading.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for asserting his right to speak on the Bill at a time when a few people wanted to bustle it through as though it was a purely formal Bill tidying up some slight discrepancy or some little matter of obsolete law. If that is the Government's attitude, one could make a strong speech in opposition to the Bill. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will take this kindly, but I was a little sorry that he spoke so enthusiastically about it, as if it had been his sole ambition for ten years to introduce something of this kind. If he does not know it already, he will not have to be long in the Home Office before he finds that there is a bit more to it than that.
We have had more than enough of these nominal tidying-up Bills which, by pretending that a problem does not exist, the Government can get off the list. I have great hopes of the new Joint


Under-Secretary. I hope that those of us who sometimes pester the Home Office from this side of the House on matters connected with the Welfare State will find that we have an ally in the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that his influence will be exercised in the direction of widening the positive welfare activities of the Home Office along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, who pressed upon the Minister various points which, he said, were not directly under his Department.
The Home Secretary, however, is still the senior Minister responsible for the welfare of Her Majesty's subjects, not just for locking them up and punishing them. I hope to see the Home Office developing more in that direction. I hope to see it using the police more as agents of the Welfare State. They should be primus inter pares among the agents of the Welfare State and should have access to the agents of other Departments.
All this is closely connected with this brief Bill. Clause 2 states that anyone who abets suicide shall get 14 years' imprisonment. I am not sure that anyone who passes Clause 1 will not be guilty of an offence under Clause 2, unless compensating improvements are made in our welfare services to counteract the impression that the Bill could give. It is just not good enough to say that something which has been a principle of our community life for many centuries was all a mistake.
It reminds me too much of a story which I told in this House in another connection about the time when I protested to a police inspector about the way a street-corner orator was attacking an old lady because of her supposed racial origins. The inspector said to me, "If you do not like it, you can go away." That was true, but the old lady could not go away, because she lived there. If the State is now saying, "If you do not like it, you can go away, and go away quietly and do not make a fuss", it seems to me that there is here a breach of an implied contract.
The basis of the old law was not entirely theological. It is true that it was necessary to put some brake on the enthusiasm of religious people who at one stage in the development of

Christianity could not wait to enter upon the greater blessedness of the hereafter and had to be told that they must not be in a hurry, that they must stick it out and that this was a vale of tears in their preparation for something better but, none the less, they had to do their duty and live it through.
It is this question of sticking it out which we must get conveyed to the people who do not fit. It will not do if, in this modern age, we do anything to increase a danger which is great enough by saying to the person who does not fit, "That is not our fault, it is yours. We want to be rid of you." The contract between the community and the State surely is that each is responsible for each, each has a duty to the other. The State cannot say, "If you feel that you do not belong, that is all right with us." I hope the Under-Secretary of State will appreciate that in addition to the informed and interesting suggestions which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool has made, in addition to the important classifications arising from modern medical and psychiatric knowledge, we must accept the fact that weakness of character, lack of—to use the old military term which has fallen into desuetude—moral fibre, can pass un-noticed in people in many places in the country, and certainly causes them to break down in circumstances of particular temptation.
I am speaking as a Member for a borough which, I am told, has or has had the highest suicide rate. I know that that is not very convincing, if it is true, because one would expect a certain number of suicides to disappear in the anonymity of a crowded city before they finally do commit suicide, but none the less the sort of suicides I have in mind are those precipitated by social conditions which make life intolerable for those persons in particular.
That is the situation which enrages me, when I see a picture of people with tidy little Bills which they think will clear up a lot of social problems in a liberal-minded way. I hope that that is not at all to be the attitude of the Under-Secretary of State. I am talking more about the young Minister than I am about the Bill, but it is, I think, a perfectly fair point that a Bill of this kind is either bad or hypocritical, or it is tolerable, if it is introduced in conjunction with and


as part of a constructive policy coming from the Home Office over a broad range of social problems, and only if it is.
I would have thought it unnecessary to state formally that it is not an offence, because I still think it is an offence to break the contract. I think it is an offence for the State to break its contract with the individual, and I think the State is gravely guilty in the cases which come to my notice. I think it is still possible to regard it as a dereliction of social duty to contract out, not to stick it out; but the nature of the penalty, the nature of the condemnation, is a very different matter.
After all, the offence we are discussing takes place only after a special consideration and in special circumstances, and certainly the penal results of such offence could be altered along the lines my hon. Friend has suggested. The suggestion of guardianship seems to me very interesting as in fact reviving the theory that the State has the duty to prolong and the individual has the duty to belong to something, and that is precisely the sort of work which I had been hoping the Home Office would push. There are so many voluntary organisations in so many fields working in a climate of public opinion which is entirely favourable to great steps forward, but I do not think we are getting the help from the Home Office that we should.
I was interested when another of my hon. Friends mentioned one voluntary organisation of a very special kind, and yet the police are not encouraged to use proper agencies of other Departments of State, other welfare Departments of State in dealing with problems which can lead to self destruction in the case of complete break down and despair; they are not encouraged to the extent they should be.
I shall not detain the Under-Secretary of State or the House longer, but I am tempted to ask the Under-Secretary of State if he will let me take him on a tour of Paddington, a tour which would open his eyes to some of the circumstances which put intolerable strains upon people who would evade the consequences of their own characters if they were not afflicted by the extra problems of housing and loneliness and so on which occur in these great cities. I hope that in his

closing remarks he will give us much more constructive assurances on this point and on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. In that case, we shall be happy to accept the Bill.

12.35 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): If I may, with the leave of the House, reply to this debate, which no one regrets more than I was interrupted in the way it was, I will deal, first, with the very interesting and and comprehensive speech of the Hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who covered a great deal of ground, who reminded us that there is a season for suicide and took us from the coroner's court through the Oxford suicides to the Gold Coast.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a curb on the reports of inquests on suicides and, generally, a curb on the reporting of such matters was, I think, echoed by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). I know that there is the precedent in divorce cases, but it is not a complete precedent, because the non-publication of evidence there is to prevent obscenity being scanned whereas the hon. Member's motive is somewhat different. It is to prevent imitation.
It is true, of course, that a great deal of crime, not only the crime of suicide, is imitative, but, if we take the view that people shall not read about crime or near-crime in case they should imitate it, we should be going very far indeed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying it is imitative, and that has to be taken into account.
On the hon. Gentleman's general point, which was again echoed by other speakers tonight, that it is not enough simply to say that suicide and attempted suicide shall no longer be a crime, we agree that not only must we have, as it were, the negative provisions which the Bill provides, but that there is a responsibility upon society and upon the State to see that the provision is made to help those people, to prevent them committing suicide if we can and to prevent them repeating attempts at suicide, and, at any rate, to see that they get such treatment as they should have.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, upon whom the prime responsibility rests in spite of what was said about the Home Office, has listened to this debate and, I am sure, will have paid a great deal of attention to it. What has troubled a great many hon. Members, I think, including the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), is this question of the gap that there may be as a result of this legislation—namely that there may be a number of people attempting suicide who, in future, will not appear to be reached in the sense that the police, who in the past used to look after them, will no longer do so, or, at least, will not do so in the same way because attempted suicide will be no offence in future.
The numbers of those persons is a matter of opinion. The hon. Member for Pontypool seemed to think that the numbers would be large. My advice is that it is thought the numbers will be a small minority of attempted suicides, that is to say, those neither liable to compulsory treatment nor willing to receive treatment voluntarily. There is another way in which the gap is somewhat narrowed, because where the nature of the attempt has an element of nuisance and entails the possibility of injury or danger to others, as, for example, where the person making the attempt has to be rescued at the risk of another's life, it may be possible to bring the person before the justices, either under their inherent powers or under the Act of 1361, to bind him over to keep the peace. In that case the normal provisions would apply.
We do not want to create an offence to cover the small group in this gap. The whole purpose of the Bill is to get rid of the odour of criminality. Although I appreciate the parallel with guardianship orders and, in the case of those people suffering in the way that that was mentioned, under the National Insurance Act, nevertheless I think that it would be a pity to try to define and frame an offence to deal with this small group. We shall have to see how we go on. If it becomes a menace, we will no doubt look at the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Pontypool of the possibility

of using the guardianship machinery or some other way, but for the time being I suggest we try to see whether we can get on without any such resort to the courts, because that is what we are trying to avoid.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: No one suggests that we should create an offence to deal with these people. But whether the gap be great or small, what I have suggested and what some of my hon. Friends have suggested today is that there should be some machinery, perhaps through the assistance of the police or other social welfare, to deal with the gap and to ensure that these people receive the treatment that is appropriate to their condition.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have no doubt that there will be machinery to provide treatment if they are prepared to take it. The problem arises in exercising compulsory powers on them if they are not prepared to take it. Compulsory powers involve the use of penal machinery almost inevitably and that brings back in its turn the odour of criminality which we seek to avoid. That is the crux of the problem and it is certainly in our minds. We will examine it all the time to see whether anything need be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) raised two points which he regarded as more than Committee points, and I think that he was right. He wondered whether it was really necessary to create a new offence of aiding or abetting suicide or attempted suicide and he suggested that serious cases of that kind might be dealt with under the provisions of the Homicide Act. But if the suicide is not successful there is no homicide, and even if it is successful the provisions of the Homicide Act do not apply unless there has been a suicide pact. We think that complicity in the death of another person ought still to be properly regarded as criminal conduct. Since the effect of Clause 1, if nothing more were done, would be to make such conduct no longer an offence, it is necessary to include the provisions in Clause 2 creating a new offence. This was the recommendation of the Statute Law Revision Committee.
The other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend dealt


with the distinction between circumstances covered by Section 4 of the Homicide Act and those covered by the new offence. Both deal with suicide pacts, because it is only in the case of a suicide pact that the offence is reduced from murder to manslaughter under the Homicide Act. I should like to deal with the distinction that we seek to draw. There are two possibilities. In the first case the successful suicide has killed himself with his own hand. In that case we think that the offence of the survivor who has failed to kill himself with his own hand is less grave than in the other case in which the death of the deceased occurred through the act of the survivor. The gravity is much greater in the latter case. For that reason, it remains manslaughter under the Homicide Act.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I still do not see this subtle distinction. If it is a suicide pact, both of them want to die. Which one is the active partner in the death seems to be quite immaterial to this case. Why one should draw this distinction between a life sentence and 14 years is very curious. If it is not a suicide pact, if one is killed and the other did not intend to die, it is murder and the situation does not arise. If they both want to die, it is a suicide pact, and if they survive, they should be punished impartially.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The view of the Committee, though I see that it is arguable, is that there is a greater offence in actually striking somebody else than in striking oneself, and that is the distinction that the Bill seeks to draw. I do not think I can take it further now, but no doubt we can argue that in Committee, as no doubt we can the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson).
Since it is so late, perhaps I might just conclude by thanking the House for the general welcome to the Bill. I think it has had a general welcome, subject to the fears of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and those of the hon. Member for Paddington, North that the Bill itself might somehow give potential suicides the impression that what they were proposing to do was no longer regarded as wrong. I should like to state as solemnly as 1 can that that is certainly

not the view of the Government, that we wish to give no encouragement whatever to suicide, that a great many people, probably the majority of the people of the country, have regarded it, now regard it and will continue to regard it as a mortal sin, and that, in the words of the hon. Member for Paddington, North, there is a duty, as there certainly is, to stick it out.
With those words, I hope that nothing that I have said will give the impression that the act of self-murder, of self-destruction, is regarded at all lightly by the Home Office or the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

FATSTOCK GUARANTEE PAYMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I apologise for raising this subject at such a late hour of the night. I am rather unfortunate in timing my interventions. The last time I mentioned it we had a full House instead of the empty House that I now have. On that occasion the whole House was tense waiting for the Prime Minister to make a most important pronouncement when I asked a Question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about fat cattle and caused great amusement thereby.
I make no apology for raising the subject now and keeping you out of bed, Mr. Speaker, because either a very grave injustice is being done to my constituents in West Aberdeenshire, and, indeed, to persons throughout Scotland, or a great deal of public money is being wasted contrary to the will of Parliament, and the Minister must make up his mind one way or the other about what has actually happened.
I apologise to my hon Friend, the Under-Secretary, because in 10 minutes the train he intended to catch at Kings Cross will be steaming out without him.
Some years ago the Government announced their policy to give guaranteed prices for the purpose of enabling farmers to budget ahead, and year by year they say to the farmers, "It does not matter whether the market is good or bad; you will at least get on average a certain price for your cattle and other products." In the Price Review this year the Government announced that on average a guaranteed price for fat cattle would be 167s. per live cwt. That is a very reasonable price and ensures that the farmer does not have to worry about depressions in the market such as have occurred since the Review. The effect of the payment is striking, because according to today's Scotsman the average price of fat cattle in the United Kingdom this week was only 110s. 2d. per live cwt. But for the fact that the Government guaranteed the price the farmers would have been in a miserable state.
In the week before—the last figure available—the Government agreed to a deficiency payment of 66s. 6d. per live cwt., and the effect in that week, subject to small adjustments, was to make the price of fat cattle available to the farmer 167s. in accordance with the Government's guarantee. It is not always possible to work out the guarantee price per live cwt. and, as an alternative, the Government announced last week that they would pay 13⅓d. per pound dead weight for cattle graded after slaughter.
There is a difference between one cattle beast and another after it has been slaughtered. Live weight includes the hide, horns and feet, which are not saleable from the butcher's point of view, and there is considerable difference between that and the dead weight which is what interests the butcher. Cattle vary a great deal, and some may have a dead weight of only 50 per cent. of their live weight. Other cattle which are better reared may kill out, as the saying is, at 60 per cent. of the live weight. In the north of Scotland, and particularly in my constituency, that is not an unusual figure, although according to the figures supplied by my hon. Friend the percentage throughout the United Kingdom is graded at about 56 per cent.
I am told that no cattle beast is eligible for a deficiency payment unless in the opinion of the grader it is likely to kill

out at not less than 54 per cent. If we do a proportion sum and compare the live weight figure fixed by the Government of 66s. 6d. per live cwt. with 13⅓d., we find that they are basing the killing out percentage at an average of only 53·4 per cent., which is remarkably low. So if a farmer has a poor beast he has it graded for subsidy after it is dead and he will get his deficiency payment on the dead weight. If he has a good beast he will get a good deal more.
There are four ways of selling cattle. The most common way, both in Scotland and in England, is by live auction, where the beast is sold in an auction mart. It is graded live and the deficiency payment is so much per live cwt. There are a small number of beasts sold live and graded live by private bargain, but they are not of great importance. The third way, which is very important, is by private sale based on dead weight. In that case, the farmer sells the beast to a butcher or fatstock marketing commission, for example, for an all-in price which includes the subsidy, and the subsidy goes not to the farmer who reared the beast but to the butcher who slaughtered it.
There is a fourth way, in which the beast is sold to the butcher at what is known as grade and dead weight, and in that case the farmer is paid so much a 1b. dead weight and he gets the subsidy. That method is rather important in England but of little importance in Scotland.
Sales by live auction in Scotland are rather more common than in England; 70 per cent. of the beasts in England are sold by auction, but in Scotland the percentage is 74 per cent. It is the custom throughout Scotland to sell beasts in the auction market and not by private treaty. In Scotland very little is done by private sales of live beasts; and the situation is similar in England. Many beasts are sold through the livestock marketing commission live for an all-in price, but it is rather more common in England than in Scotland; and the position is similar with sales on grade and dead weight. The sales in England by this method are very much greater than in Scotland. The last available figures which I have show that only 26 beasts were sold in this way in Week 5, 22 in Week 6 and 17 in Week 7. It is negligible in Scotland, but many beasts are


sold in that way in England. It is to the advantage of the English farmer to have his deficiency payments based on dead weight but of no practical importance to the Scottish farmer who does not have his deficiency payments in that way.
The effect of that is that the Scottish farmer who is producing a good beast suffers a considerable loss compared with the corresponding English farmer. For example, a 9 cwt. beast this week killing out art 60 per cent. would receive a deficiency payment of £33 14s. On the other hand, if it is a pretty miserable sort of beast the figure would be only £30 10s. and a beast according Ito the national average would get £31 5s. If the same farmer takes the beast, whether good or bad, to an auction sale, he receives by way of deficiency payment only £29 18s. 6d. If it is a very good beast he loses by selling it in this way no less than £4; if it is a miserable beast he loses 10s.; and if it is an average beast he loses 30s.
When Parliament made these provisions it never intended to help the butchers: it intended to help the farmers who are rearing these beasts. But that extra money is going into the pockets of the butchers in the event of these animals being graded dead. If the beast is sold in the Scottish way in an auction sale, then the Government save the money.
How much money is involved? There is a lot. According to the Government's own figures I reckon that on average 11,000 animals are sold dead or are graded dead each week. If the national average figure is 30s., that means that some £16,000 to £17,000 every week of public money is being poured out, in my opinion contrary to Parliament's wishes. That is a lot of money—no less than £750,000 a year which, I submit, Parliament never intended to be spent, because the regulations made by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Secretary of State provide for deficiency payments being paid at so much per live cwt.
Looking at it in another way, let us suppose that the Minister intends that the deficiency payment should be made on dead weight. My constituents and other farmers are being deprived of no

less than £2¾ million a year. The Minister must make up his mind whether he is to continue to deprive these cattle rearers of £2¾ million, or whether he is to continue to pour £ ¾ million per annum down the drain contrary to the expressed desires of Parliament. I calculate that Scotland's share of this £ ¾ is £260,000 a year. That is more than ten times as much as is being spent by the Secretary of State on medical research each year, and I suggest that it would be a very good thing if the Department saved that money in this way and spent it on some better cause.
I have tried to discover why the Scottish Office continues to work on this quite erroneous proportion sum, and the only feasible explanation is that it is administratively convenient to equate 5s. per live cwt. with 1d. per cwt. deadweight. I am told that to get the proportion of the national average would entail going to three places of decimals, but any schoolboy with a slide-rule could work out the proportion sum without difficulty, and I am sure that it is not beyond the capacity of my right hon. Friend to work out conversion tables for the use of his civil servants, even if their arithmetic is not very good.
What is happening at present is that a subsidy is being given to the inefficient farmer who cannot produce a good beast. It is either that, or the man who can produce a good beast is being penalised by not getting the subsidy Parliament intended for him. It is obviously in the interests of the English farmer, and particularly of the in-efficient English farmer, to keep things as they are now, but I ask my hon. Friend to be bold, and to tell the English that in this case their interests are not necessarily the same as the Scottish interests; and to make sure that the Scottish farmers get a fair deal in this connection.
It would not need any legislation whatever to cure this anomaly. The Minister has already made his Order on the basis of a deficiency payment per live hundredweight, but whether it is on live weight or dead weight is purely an administrative matter within the discretion of the Minister, so I ask him to correct this quite unnecessary and nonsensical anomaly.

1.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) on the clarity with which he has expounded this subject tonight. The background to the question that he has raised is a somewhat intricate one, as I believe you, Sir, will already have gathered, and I think that it will help the House if I begin by explaining how guarantee payments for fat cattle are calculated, and how the conversion factor to which my hon. Friend has referred fits into the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme.
The basis of all the calculations is of course the guaranteed price for cattle, which is determined after each Annual Review. As my hon. Friend has said, the figure for this year is 167s. per live cwt. To allow for variations in production costs at different times of the year, and for seasonal variations in the numbers of cattle marketed, this figure is converted into a scale of weekly standard prices per live cwt. which are estimated to be equivalent for the year as a whole to the determined guaranteed price. It is purely a coincidence that in the week my hon. Friend quoted the price happened to be 167s. 6d.
The amount of guarantee paid to those selling cattle in any one week is the sum of money required to make up the difference between the average price per live cwt. at auction marts throughout the United Kingdom, as estimated for purposes of the Scheme, and the standard price. All these figures, in short, are related to the sale of cattle "on the hoof".
Since cattle are also sold by deadweight, we must have a reasonably ready and acceptable conversion factor for applying the guarantee to such sales. The figure in use since 1954, when the Scheme was introduced in its present form, has been 1d. per 1b. deadweight for every 5s. per cwt, liveweight. This figure has long been in widely recognised use by the trade and it was, in fact, used in the thirties for the purposes of the pre-war cattle subsidy.
The factor is purely a conventional one—and no one would claim that it is any other than that—and as with most conventions, it is a round figure. The objective basis for it, to treat it as a strict

piece of arithmetic for a moment, is the postulate that most cattle carcasses, on average, yield in edible meat about 54 per cent. of the liveweight of the animal. This is, broadly speaking, in accordance with the facts and, as hon. Members will see, the equivalence would be exact for a carcase yielding 60 1bs. of meat for every cwt. of liveweight or, in precise terms, a killing out percentage of 53·5714 per cent.
I should like at this stage to emphasise a number of important facts in connection with the Guaranteed Scheme in general and this conversion factor in particular. Firstly, the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme is a guarantee to the industry as a whole. Put another way, it ensures that producers, on average, get the guaranteed rate of return, since this is made up of the average market price plus the guarantee payment. But it follows that some producers will do better than the average and that others will not do so well, depending on their success in the markets.
Secondly, consistent with this approach, the Government's policy is that each producer should be completely free to exercise his own choice about the timing and method of selling his beasts, so as to make the best that his skill and opportunities afford him from the market. The underlying intention is that the guarantee should not interfere with this process.
Thirdly, the minimum killing-out percentage prescribed in the scheme is 54 per cent. Any animal which killed-out at 50 per cent. would not qualify for payment. Until recently, the national average killing-out percentage—so far as it could be reasonably estimated from market observations—was probably, though I cannot be too precise about this, in the region of 56 per cent. I agree that I quoted this figure in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West.
The killing-out percentage is, however, a very fluid notion. It can vary at different times of the year, with different methods of feeding, with the "finish" of the marketed animal and even with its bodily state at the time of sale and slaughter. All these factors have a bearing on the national average at any given time. It is true that for


animals with a high killing-out percentage, particularly at the present time when the guarantee is at an unprecedentedly high level, there is a difference between the guarantee that a beast might receive if it were sold by dead weight instead of by live weight. The higher the guarantee level the more sizeable the difference. As I have said, the present rate of guarantee is unprecedentedly high. Whereas this week the provisional rate of guarantee for Grade I cattle is 66s. per live cwt., over the past two years it has ranged from nil to 19s. 6d. in the year 1959–60 and from 1s. to 30s. 6d. in 1960–61.
I do not think anyone would wish to argue that we should chop and change the conversion factor to suit changing circumstances. Indeed, we could not readily do so without departing from one of the long accepted notions on which, at least by implication, the payment of the guarantee has always been based. The facts recited by my hon. Friend are, I am sure, reasonably well known to the general mass of producers, and I hope that I have demonstrated to the House that any apparent discrepancy, small in itself, is moreover only one relatively small factor in a highly intricate set of marketing considerations and figures based necessarily for the most part on calculation and estimation. To choose any other level of killing-out percentage would, I submit, be equally arbitrary, just as inequitable on the face of it, and certainly more complicated both to use and to substantiate to producers.
The fact is that around 80 per cent. of cattle are sold by liveweight and, as I have said, every producer is free to choose which method of sale suits him best, with regard both to market price and guarantee. I cannot believe that 80 per cent. of our astute farmers in Scotland, or, for that matter, in Aberdeenshire, would be selling their animals by liveweight if it were on the whole more profitable to sell them by deadweight.
My hon. Friend said that he would not mind this so much if the payment were going to the producer, but he suggested that this was not the case. He suggested that this additional sum of money, which of course is the greater when the guarantee is high, was in fact finding its way into other pockets. I assure him that I have not been able to find any evidence that that is so. My information, for ex-

ample, in regard to the F.M.C. is that while it pays an all-in price, that all-in price clearly reflects to the seller of the beast the killing-out percentage. In other words, if the F.M.C. has an animal of 1,000 1bs.—I am talking of 1,000 1bs. weight, and not a Perthshire animal—and if the killing-out percentage is, let us say, 60 per cent., the F.M.C. pays the all-in price including the guarantee at 600 times. If it is killed out at only 55 per cent. it will pay only 550 times.
The other point that my hon. Friend specifically made was his suggestion that a higher proportion of animals was sold deadweight in England than in Scotland and that, therefore, in some way England was getting some benefit. This, I am bound to say, would hurt me greatly if it were so. But again I must tell my hon. Friend that the figures that I have do not bear that out.
Although I can give total numbers, I think it is easiest to give the figures in percentages. In 1957–58, there were in the United Kingdom 82 per cent. of animals sold liveweight and 18 per cent. sold deadweight. In the same year, in Scotland there were 80 per cent. sold liveweight and 20 per cent. sold deadweight. Obviously, there were more in Scotland than in England. In 1958–59, in the United Kingdom the percentages were 81 liveweight and 19 deadweight. In Scotland, it was 80 per cent. live-weight and 20 per cent. deadweight again. In 1959–60, in the United Kingdom it was 80 per cent. and 20 per cent., and in Scotland the figures were the same, 80 per cent. and 20 per cent.
I agree that there was a period in 1960–61 when the Scottish percentage of deadweight rose considerably, but that was due, we believe, largely to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, when there was a very much higher proportion of animals sold deadweight. I cannot find any evidence for believing that our English friends are receiving some advantage out of this scheme which we in Scotland are not receiving.
My hon. Friend put it that either I was doing an injustice to his farmers or a great deal of money belonging to the Exchequer was being poured down the drain. Here again, I suggest that neither of these things is really happening. My hon. Friend's farmers can choose to sell their animals in whichever way they wish. If they do not


choose to sell them deadweight, they are receiving a fair deal from the Government based on a guaranteed price of 167s. if they sell liveweight. It may be that, on certain occasions, as my hon. Friend said, certain farmers, if they sell deadweight, may derive a little advantage. To that extent, of course, one might have to admit that the Exchequer is having to find a little more money than it would if we could find

an exact way of calculating this business. But the grading of cattle is not an exact science. It is not like dealing with some fine alloy or metal in regard to which one can arrive at very nice accurate percentages to three places of decimals. It is not an exact science, and the figures I have show that, over the years—

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past One o'clock